27
UDK: 316.334.56:005.418:711.432(4-11+4-191.2) DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-2016-27-01-002
Prejeto: 25. 10. 2015 Sprejeto: 22. 2. 2016
Jasna MARIOTTI Janez KOŽELJ
Po sledeh postsocialističnega prestrukturiranja mest: spreminjajoča se središča v srednje- in vzhodnoevropskih prestolnicah
Hitre politične in gospodarske spremembe po padcu socializma so povzročile dinamične procese urbanega prestrukturiranja v mestih, pri čemer so stare vzorce in modele rasti zamenjali tisti, pri katerih sta bila kapital in tržno gospodarstvo ključna za rast in razvoj. Preobrazba v tržno gospodarstvo in ponovna uvedba lastništva zemljišč sta zahtevali nov, decentralizirani sistem odločanja, kar je neposredno vplivalo na zgradbo in obliko mest. Med urbanimi preobrazbami so prišle jasno do izraza spremembe v lokacijskih vzorcih trgovskih objektov v mestih, ki so ponazarjale različne vzorce prostorske organizacije postsocialističnih mest. V članku avtorja preučujeta in
predstavita nekatere posebnosti te preobrazbe v Bukarešti, Budimpešti, Pragi in Sofiji pred padcem socializma in po njem. Na podlagi analize izbranih mest predstavita procese postsocialističnega prostorskega prestrukturiranja, pri čemer preučujeta spremembe njihovih središč, ki so povzročile razdrobljenost mest in razpadanje urbanega tkiva. V primerjalni študiji je poleg tega prikazano, kako se v mestih s podobno preteklostjo lahko pojavijo različni razvojni vzorci.
Ključne besede: središča, decentralizacija, fragmentacija, obrobja, postsocialistična mesta
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
28
J. MARIOTTI, J. KOŽELJ
1 Uvod
Nenaden prehod iz socializma je močno vplival na preobraz-beno dinamiko ter jakost razvoja večine srednje- in vzhodnoevropskih mest. Ponovna uvedba lastništva in začetek privatizacije sta bila ključna dejavnika, ki sta prispevala k prostorskemu prestrukturiranju mest (Harloe, 1996; Nedovic-Budic idr., 2006; Stanilov, 2007; Hoxha idr., 2014, in Tsenkova, 2014). Kriza urbanizma kot posledica tega prestrukturiranja je pomenila nenehno evolucijo in prilagajanje ter ni bila omejena samo na mestno gradnjo, ampak je vključevala tudi širše politične in družbenoekonomske vidike (Koželj, 1992). Ti procesi so povzročili večplastne urbane preobrazbe, ki so vplivale na zaposlovanje, stanovanjski trg, naložbe in strukturo prebivalstva v mestih.
Med socializmom je rast mest povzročila ozemeljsko širitev teh, medtem ko je bilo v mestnih središčih opaznih manj fizičnih sprememb (Musil, 1993). Urbana preobrazba postso-cialističnih mest je še okrepila trende prostorske razpršenosti. Mesta so še naprej širila svoja predmestja ter s tem še dodatno prispevala k suburbanizaciji in razvoju mestnega obrobja kot posebnega vidika rasti mest (Koželj, 2007). Na suburbanizacijo so vplivali politični in gospodarski dejavniki (Kok in Kovacs, 1999), obrobja mest v tranziciji pa so začela rasti kmalu po letu 1990, ko so se tudi ljudje v večjem številu začeli preseljevati na obrobje. Uvedba tržnega gospodarstva, vse večji interesi nepremičninskih investitorjev in načrtovalske pobude občin, ki so mejile na glavna mesta, so povzročili nastanek sosesk z enodružinskimi hišami, ki so bile za številne najbolj zaželena stanovanjska izbira (Leetmaa in Tammaru, 2007). Novi naselitveni vzorci niso vplivali samo na stanovanjski trg v mestih, ampak tudi na njihovo družbeno in prostorsko segrega-cijo ter prebivalstveno strukturo. Pojav neformalnih naselij v istem obdobju je še dodatno prispeval k težavam, povezanim z družbeno izključenostjo, zagotavljanjem stanovanj in prostorskim načrtovanjem (Tsenkova, 2010, ter Mandič in Filipovič Hrast, 2015).
Sočasno s procesi prostorskega prestrukturiranja je mestno središče izgubljalo stanovanjsko funkcijo in se spreminjalo bolj v turistično znamenitost kot v bivalni prostor (Kádár, 2013). Hkrati je obrobje postalo privlačnejše zaradi trgovskih dejavnosti, ki so bile uvedene za zadovoljevanje potreb lokalnih prebivalcev. S tem je postala preobrazba trgovskih objektov v mestih eden glavnih vidikov preobrazbe (Sykora, 1998; Sai-ler-Fliege, 1999; Hirt in Kovachev, 2006, ter Stefanovska in Koželj, 2012). Mestno obrobje se je izkazalo za primernejšo lokacijo za nove programske strukture, ki so popestrile nove mestne predele. V novih središčih, kjer je ogromno pisarn in trgovskih objektov, so se začele kopičiti potrošniške storitve in
ustvarile so se nove oblike urbanih subjektov. Čeprav so bila nova središča na obrobju, niso bila ločena od starega mestnega središča, ampak so z njim sobivala; to so delno omogočale boljše povezave med središčem mesta in njegovim predmestjem.
Te spremembe so vsekakor pospešili procesi odločanja, ki so bili na novo uvedeni v okviru postsocialističnega načrtovanja ter so v končni fazi preobrazili mestno pokrajino in dojemanje mest. Urbanistične spremembe so bile glavno gonilo prostorske preobrazbe v mestih. Načrtovanje se je spremenilo v proces, ki so ga usmerjali investitorji in trg ter ga je bilo pogosto težko nadzirati, kar je še dodatno prispevalo h krizi načrtovalske legitimnosti (Kos, 2010). Poleg tega je centralistični načrtoval-ski sistem zamenjal decentralizirani sistem, ki je z različnimi zakonodajnimi spremembami dal več moči lokalni upravi, kar je prispevalo k prostorskemu neredu in neenakomernemu urbanemu razvoju (Tsenkova, 2011).
V	članku avtorja preučujeta lokacijske vzorce središč z vidika urbane preobrazbe postsocialističnih evropskih mest. Izraz »središče« se nanaša na koncentracijo trgovskih dejavnosti in osrednjih mestnih funkcij, ki na določeno lokacijo privlačijo veliko število ljudi. Na podlagi primerjalne raziskave so analizirani značilnosti, razvoj in lokacijski vzorci središč, zgrajenih v Bukarešti, Budimpešti, Pragi in Sofiji pred padcem socializma in po njem.
Glavni cilj je poudariti prostorsko prestrukturiranje mest ter predstaviti odnose med lokacijskimi vzorci središč in urbanističnimi procesi in njihovo dinamiko. S preučevanjem teh vidikov želita avtorja prispevati k boljšemu razumevanju urbane preobrazbe po padcu socializma, pri čemer je glavni poudarek na prostorskem prestrukturiranju mest na podlagi njihovih spreminjajočih se središč. Glavni raziskovalni vprašanji se glasita: kateri lokacijski vzorci so bili za središča v teh mestih značilni pred padcem socializma in po njem in kaj je vplivalo na pojav središč v postsocialističnem obdobju.
V	prvem poglavju je predstavljen kratek pregled urbane preobrazbe v srednje- in vzhodnoevropskih prestolnicah. V drugem poglavju so na podlagi lokacijskih vzorcev središč preučeni prostorsko prestrukturiranje in središča, ki so bila v štirih obravnavanih mestih zgrajena med socializmom. V tretjem poglavju avtorja preučujeta nastajajoča središča in lokacijske vzorce, na podlagi katerih predstavita določene vidike postsocialistične urbane preobrazbe. V sklepu so podane končne ugotovitve o spreminjajočih se središčih ter njihovih lokacijskih vzorcih pred spremembo in po njej, pri čemer so predstavljene podobnosti in razlike v vzorcih njihove razpršenosti.
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Po sledeh postsocialističnega prestrukturiranja mest: spreminjajoča se središča v srednje- in vzhodnoevropskih prestolnicah
29
Slika 1: Središča, zgrajena pred letom 1989 v (a) Bukarešti, (b) Budimpešti, (c) Pragi in (d) Sofiji (ilustracija: Jasna Mariotti).
Opomba: Vsa mesta so prikazana v istem merilu, pri čemer je predstavljeno njihovo trenutno upravno in načrtovalsko območje. Risbe poleg tega prikazujejo trenutne proge podzemne železnice v teh mestih ter njihova stara jedra in središča, zgrajena med socializmom.
2 Prostorsko prestrukturiranje mest med socializmom
Med socializmom so bili za mesta značilni vzorci rasti, ki so bili posledica osrednje državne ureditve. Ena od glavnih značilnosti tovrstne ureditve je bila ukinitev zasebnega lastništva (Szelenyi, 1996, in Musil, 2005), ki je močno vplivala na načrtovanje in razvoj mest.
V tem obdobju je delež mestnega prebivalstva rastel in prebivalstvo v glavnih mestih se je povečevalo. To je bila posledica urbanizacijskih politik in strategij socialistične državne ureditve, ki so vključevale celostno načrtovanje in razporeditev industrije v mestih - sestavni del razvoja socialistične družbe (Musil, 1980). Med socializmom se je prebivalstvo v Bukarešti povečalo za 312 %, v Sofiji za 228 %, v Pragi za 129 % in v Budimpešti za 123 % (World population prospects, 2008). Za naraščajoče prebivalstvo so bile v predmestjih zgrajene stanovanjske soseske, ki so povečale ozemeljski obseg in korenito spremenile prostorsko konfiguracijo mest. Montažna gradnja je pospešila razvoj mestnega obrobja, pri čemer so nastale gosto pozidane soseske, ki so zmanjšale stanovanjski primanjkljaj. Neobstoj nepremičninskega trga in osrednje nadziran načrto-valski sistem sta vplivala na vzorce urbanega razvoja in tako omogočila opisano preobrazbo.
Urbanizem je bil omejen na izpolnjevanje osrednje koordiniranih državnih ideologij (Maier, 1998, in Golubchikov, 2004). V tem obdobju je deloval v sistemu, v katerem so bila zemljišča nacionalizirana, osrednje vlade pa so bile odgovorne za odločanje na vseh ravneh; to je pripeljalo do močno nadziranega urbanega razvoja. Namen načrtovalskih odločitev, ki so se sprejemale na osrednji ravni, je bila uveljavitev koncepta središč, ki je temeljil na zamisli mesta s sekundarnimi in terciarnimi
središči. Te vizije pa niso bile skoraj nikoli uresničene, saj je bil glavni poudarek vseskozi na stanovanjih v mestih, ki naj bi zadovoljila potrebe naraščajočega prebivalstva in povečala stopnjo urbanizacije na državni ravni. Tovrstne odločitve so bile ključne za oblikovanje monocentričnega mesta z močnim središčem, v katerem so bile vse glavne mestne funkcije.
Trgovski centri v Bukarešti, Pragi in Sofiji, ki so bili zgrajeni med socializmom, so bili tesno povezani z mestnim središčem ali pa so se tam tudi nahajali (slika 1). Njihovo lokacijo je določila država in tako kot vsa druga poslopja v mestu so bili v državni lasti. Za vsa štiri preučevana mesta so značilni loka-lizirani vzorci razpršenosti središč, zgrajenih pred letom 1989; bila so maloštevilna, nahajala pa so se blizu topografskih in zgodovinskih mestnih središč. S tem so bili tudi potrošniški vzorci v teh mestih lokalizirani in močno nadzirani, skupaj z blagom, ki se je prodajalo. Kljub temu so bile stavbe mojstrovine socialistične arhitekture in miselnosti (slika 2).
Blagovnica Kotva v Pragi, zgrajena med letoma 1966 in 1974, je bila prva blagovnica, ki je bila tam zgrajena med socializmom (slika 2c). Ob dokončanju je bila največja blagovnica na Češkoslovaškem. Kotva je primer socialistične arhitekture, saj je zgrajena iz heksagonalnih prizem, naloženih druga na drugo, njeno razgibano pročelje pa je izjemen primerek brutalizma. Stavba je bila zgrajena iz industrijskih surovin, kot so železo, steklo in beton, in čeprav stoji v zgodovinski mestni soseski, njena kompleksna konstrukcija močno izstopa. Kmalu po odprtju je postala mestna ikona, zdaj pa je spomeniško zaščitena. Drugi nakupovalni center, ki je bil v Pragi zgrajen med socializmom, je blagovnica My na Narodni aveniji (češ. Narodni trida). Zgrajena je bila leta 1978 in je izvrsten primerek češke arhitekture iz 70. let 20. stoletja. Tudi ta stavba je spomeniško zaščitena. V nasprotju s Kotvo ima razmeroma preprosto linearno konstrukcijo, ki pa je še vedno izjemna. Nakupovalni
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
30
J. MARIOTTI, J. KOŽELJ
Slika 2: Središča, zgrajena pred letom 1989 v (a) Bukarešti (Unirea, 1976/1989), (b) Budimpešti (Skala Metro, 1984), (c) Pragi (Kotva, 1966-1974) in (d) Sofiji (osrednja blagovnica; 1957/2000) (foto: Jasna Mariotti).
center Unirea v Bukarešti (slika 2a), zgrajen leta 1976 in razširjen leta 1989, je veljal za največjo blagovnico socialistične Romunije. Čeprav je bil zgrajen v mestnem središču na ulici Bulevardul Unirii - mogočni mestni osi, zgrajeni za uresničitev Ceausescujeve vizije veličastne Bukarešte -, nima enakega značaja kot druge stavbe v okolici. Kljub temu je bila stavba vpliven primer romunskega potrošništva - tako po velikosti kot po videzu. Prvotna stavba je imela velika okna, danes pa so ta prekrita z veleplakati, zaradi katerih je prvotni objekt komaj še viden. Osrednja blagovnica v Sofiji je bila odprta leta 1957 kot spomenik bolgarskemu socialističnemu potrošništvu (slika 2d). Mogočna stavba, ki simbolizira modernizacijo mesta ter s svojo velikostjo in površino obvladuje mestno središče, je bila zgrajena na eni od glavnih mestnih osi. Čeprav so bili ti trgovski centri preoblikovani in včasih tudi razširjeni, imajo še vedno velik vpliv v urbanem tkivu Bukarešte, Budimpešte, Prage in Sofije. Njihov videz in avtoritativni vpliv razkrivata vzorce socialističnega potrošništva v mestu, namenjenemu socialističnemu človeku.
3 Postsocialistično prestrukturiranje mest: spreminjajoča se središča
Preobrazba postsocialističnih mest je posledica kompleksnih družbenih, gospodarskih, kulturnih in političnih sprememb. V ozadju teh procesov je bila privatizacija (Stark, 1992; Clapham, 1995; Markuse, 1996; Grime, 1999; Stanilov, 2007, in Sendi, 2013) ali vračanje premoženja, ki je spremenilo trg in pogoje za razvoj mest. Končni rezultat teh preobrazbenih procesov je bilo zmagoslavje neoliberalizma v razvojnih vzorcih post-socialističnih mest (Sailer-Fliege, 1999; Smith in Rochovska, 2007, ter Golubchikov in Phelps, 2009). Pri postsocialistični preobrazbi Bukarešte, Budimpešte, Prage in Sofije je šlo za zgo-ščanje urbanega tkiva na podlagi stalnega povečevanja števila stanovanj, pisarn in trgovskih centrov.
Po padcu socializma se je stanovanjski fond v vseh štirih mestih stalno povečeval (preglednica 1). Bivališča, katerih število se
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Po sledeh postsocialističnega prestrukturiranja mest: spreminjajoča se središča v srednje- in vzhodnoevropskih prestolnicah
31
Preglednica 1: Stanovanjski fond na 1.000 prebivalcev v Bukarešti,
Budimpešta	396	466	516
Praga	424	473	ni podatka
Sofija	409	437	471
Vir: Czech Statistical Office in Prague (1990-2011), Hungarian Central Statistical Office in Budapest (1990-2011), National Statistical Institute in Sofia (1990-2011) in National Institute of Statistics in Bucharest (1990-2011)
Preglednica 2: Povprečno število gospodinjskih članov na popisano gospodinjstvo v Bukarešti, Budimpešti, Pragi in Sofiji
mesto	1991	2011
Bukarešta	2,8 (1995)	2,6 (1999)
Budimpešta	2,2 (2006)	2,3 (2009)
Praga	2,2	2,1
Sofija	2,5	2,2
Vir: Czech Statistical Office in Prague (1990-2011), Hungarian Central Statistical Office in Budapest (1990-2011), National Statistical Institute in Sofia (1990-2011) in National Institute of Statistics in Bucharest (1990-2011)
Budimpešti, Pragi in Sofiji
mesto	1991	2001	2011
Bukarešta	ni podatka 396	411
Preglednica 3: Gradbena dovoljenja, izdana v Bukarešti, Budimpešti, Pragi in Sofiji
mesto	2000		2005		2010	
	stanovanjske	nestanovanjske	stanovanjske	nestanovanjske	stanovanjske	nestanovanjske
	stavbe	stavbe	stavbe	stavbe	stavbe	stavbe
Bukarešta	ni podatka	ni podatka	1.254	244	833	136
Budimpešta	1.737	377	1.377	152	811	84
Praga	7.761	2.383	7.485	1.832	4.819	1.783
Sofija	ni podatka	ni podatka	1.226	387	596	205
Vir: Czech Statistical Office in Prague (1990-2011), Hungarian Central Statistical Office in Budapest (1990-2011), National Statistical Institute in Sofia (1990-2011) in National Institute of Statistics in Bucharest (1990-2011)
je stalno večalo, so zapolnjevala prazna območja v teh mestih, čeprav se je njihovo prebivalstvo v istem obdobju spreminjalo različno hitro. Med letoma 1990 in 2010 se je prebivalstvo Bukarešte zmanjšalo za 8,59 %, prebivalstvo Budimpešte pa za 14,7 %. Prebivalstvo Prage in Sofije se je povečalo za 2,95 oziroma 9,47 %, čeprav je bilo povečanje njunega stanovanjskega fonda še večje. Ti različni vrsti sprememb (to je stanovanjskega fonda in mestnega prebivalstva) sta povzročili prostorske motnje v urbanem tkivu obravnavanih mest. Deloma so bile te preobrazbe tudi posledica manjšanja velikosti gospodinjstev v teh mestih (preglednica 2).
V Bukarešti se je povprečno število gospodinjskih članov med letoma 1995 in 1999 zmanjšalo z 2,8 na 2,6, v Pragi in Sofiji pa se je med letoma 1991 in 2011 zmanjšalo z 2,2 na 2,1 oziroma z 2,5 na 2,2. Budimpešta je bila izjema, saj se je povprečje tam povečalo (z 2,2 na 2,3 med letoma 2006 in 2009, kar je tudi edino obdobje, za katero so bili podatki na voljo), čeprav je v enakem obdobju državno povprečje ostalo enako, in sicer 2,6.
Hkrati je upadala tudi gradbena dejavnost v teh mestih, kot je razvidno iz gradbenih dovoljenj, ki so bila po podatkih državnih statističnih uradov izdana med letoma 2000 in 2010 (preglednica 3). Med posameznimi mesti pa lahko opazimo razlike med gradbenimi dovoljenji, izdanimi za stanovanjske in ne-stanovanjske stavbe. Leta 2010 so na primer v Pragi gradbena dovoljenja za nestanovanjske stavbe predstavljala 36,9 % dovoljenj za stanovanjske stavbe, položaj pa je bil podoben tudi
Preglednica 4: Razmerje med številom prebivalcev ter številom avtomobilov v Bukarešti, Budimpešti, Pragi in Sofiji
mesto	1990	2000	2005
Bukarešta	8,16*	5,01	4,34
Budimpešta	4,28	3,20	2,84
Praga	4,14	1,90	1,95
Sofija	ni podatka	2,90	2,00
Opomba: * Podatki so bili na voljo za leto 1991.
Vir: Czech Statistical Office in Prague (1990-2011), Hungarian Central Statistical Office in Budapest (1990-2011), National Statistical Institute in Sofia (1990-2011) in National Institute of Statistics in Bucharest (1990-2011)
v Sofiji, kjer je ta delež leta 2005 znašal 31,5 %, leta 2010 pa 34,3 %. Nižje tovrstne odstotke lahko opazimo v Bukarešti in Budimpešti, kjer je bilo kljub padanju prebivalstva v istem obdobju število stanovanjskih stavb večje od števila nestano-vanjskih.
Ob teh gradbenih pobudah je v obravnavanih mestih prišlo do obsežnega prostorskega prestrukturiranja, ki je bilo posledica pojava novih središč - prostorov večjega zgoščanja gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki so se po videzu in lokaciji razlikovali od tistih, zgrajenih med socializmom. V postsocialističnem obdobju nova središča v obliki trgovskih centrov usmerjajo prostorsko prestrukturiranje urbanega tkiva, v katerem prevladujejo potrošniške pokrajine (Zukin, 1991). Spreminjajoči se vzorci in lokacije središč so značilnost mest na prehodu (Garb in
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
32
J. MARIOTTI, J. KOŽELJ
Slika 3: Središča, zgrajena po letu 1989 v (a) Bukarešti, (b) Budimpešti, (c) Pragi in (d) Sofiji (ilustracija: Jasna Mariotti).
Opomba: Vsa mesta so prikazana v istem merilu, pri čemer je predstavljeno njihovo trenutno upravno in načrtovalsko območje. Risbe poleg tega prikazujejo trenutne proge podzemne železnice v obravnavanih mestih in nova središča v obliki postsocialističnih trgovskih centrov.
Dybicz, 2006), raznolikost potrošniških vzorcev pa je ena od najpomembnejših značilnosti mest po padcu socializma (Sai-ler-Fliege, 1999, in Kreja, 2006). V takih pogojih so se v postso-cialističnem kontekstu trgovska okolja v mestih spremenila, geografske omejitve, ki so obstajale med socializmom, pa so bile zaradi povečane dostopnosti in mobilnosti ublažene (Rosu in Blageanu, 2015).
Novi trgovski objekti v postsocialističnih mestih imajo drugačno prostorsko ureditev in sledijo drugačni lokacijski logiki: pojavljajo se v gručah ali kot izolirani subjekti blizu prog podzemne železnice. Kjer teh prog ni bilo, so bila načrtovana in zgrajena nova postajališča. Večina postsocialističnih središč je bila poleg tega postavljena blizu izvozov z avtocest, saj jih je bilo tako najlaže doseči z avtom. Zato se je število osebnih vozil v vseh štirih mestih po letu 1989 močno povečalo in je trenutno med največjimi v Evropi (preglednica 4). V Bukarešti se je razmerje med številom prebivalcev in številom avtomobilov med letoma 1991 in 2005 zmanjšalo z 8,16 na 4,34, v Budimpešti pa z 4,28 na 2,84. V Pragi se je med letoma 1990 in 2005 zmanjšalo z 4,14 na 1,95, v Sofiji pa z 2,9 na 2,0, kar je povečalo pritisk na mestno infrastrukturo in povzroča pogoste prometne zastoje. Deležev avtomobilov v Sofiji je trenutno med največjimi med evropskimi glavnimi mesti, in sicer ima madžarska prestolnica 546 avtomobilov na 1.000 prebivalcev (Dunaj jih ima na primer 397, London 331, Berlin 319 in Madrid 437; Sofia in figures, 2009: 8). Število avtomobilov v Bukarešti se je med letoma 1991 in 2005 povečalo za 71 %, kar je prispevalo k močnemu onesnaženju mesta, ki je danes druga najbolj onesnažena evropska prestolnica, na prvem mestu je Sofija (Romania Insider, 2012).
Pojav središč v Bukarešti, Budimpešti, Pragi in Sofiji po letu 1989 kaže vzorce različne intenzifikacije funkcij znotraj urbanega tkiva in povečanje novih središč zunaj starega me-
stnega jedra (slika 3). Decentralizacija trgovskih dejavnosti, znana tudi kot »trgovska revolucija« (Garb in Dybicz, 2006), je bila najočitnejša značilnost postsocialističnih mest. Razvoj obrobja so omogočile povečana povezanost, dostopnost ter interakcija med predmestjem in tradicionalnim mestnim središčem, ki sta se začela prepletati in zabrisovati obstoječe ravni hierarhije (Stefanovska, 2014). Nova središča so se razmahnila postopoma. V začetku 90. let 20. stoletja so se najprej pojavile manjše trgovine, zlasti v nekdanjih socialističnih stanovanjskih soseskah. Kmalu zatem so se v mestih začele pojavljati velike blagovnice, pri čemer je vsaka nova poskušala biti večja od prej zgrajenih, kar je povzročilo eksponentno rast. Budimpešta in Praga sta vodilni v procesu decentralizacije na podlagi novih trgovskih središč, v Bukarešti in Sofiji pa naj bi se število trgovskih centrov povečalo po koncu recesije.
Kljub opisanemu intenzivnemu razvoju so postsocialistični trgovski centri zgrajeni v zelo podobnem arhitekturnem slogu, pri čemer poskuša biti vsak center večji od prejšnjega. To se razlikuje od socialističnih arhitekturnih predhodnikov, ki so bili pionirji v gradbeništvu in so izražali določene humane vidike nakupovanja. Danes se razmeroma hitro gradijo montažne objekte, natrpane s trgovskimi dejavnostmi, ki ne izražajo nobenega razumevanja okolice ne dobrih lastnosti, temveč samo trgovsko veličastnost (slika 4).
Kljub opisanim trendom rasti poskušajo v zadnjem času v Budimpešti omejiti hitro in množično pojavljanje novih trgovskih centrov, in sicer na podlagi zakona o grajenem okolju, znanem pod imenom Plaza Stop, ki je prvi poskus nadzora gradnje trgovskih objektov. Gre za različico splošnega zakona o spremembah in zaščiti grajenega okolja iz leta 1997. V skladu z najnovejšimi spremembami je prepovedano graditi trgovske objekte, večje od 300 m2. Prav tako je prepovedana širitev obstoječih trgovskih objektov, vendar so mogoče tudi izjeme,
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Po sledeh postsocialističnega prestrukturiranja mest: spreminjajoča se središča v srednje- in vzhodnoevropskih prestolnicah
33
Slika 4: Središča, zgrajena po letu 1989 v (a) Bukarešti (Plaza Romania, 2005), (b) Budimpešti (Arena Plaza, 2007), (c) Pragi (Letnany, 1999) in (d) Sofiji (blagovnica, 2010) (foto: Jasna Mariotti).
ki jih mora osebno odobriti minister za gospodarstvo. Zakon je veljal od 1. januarja 2012 do konca leta 2014, rezultati tovrstnih zakonodajnih sprememb pa za zdaj še niso vidni.
Sočasno s temi trendi nadzora gradnje na mestnem obrobju se v zadnjem času poskušajo oživiti tudi degradirana območja v središču Bukarešte, Budimpešte, Prage in Sofije. Od leta 2010 poteka v središču Bukarešte gentrifikacija, pri kateri se v mestno središče, ki je bilo med socializmom zapostavljeno, uvajajo nove trgovske dejavnosti. Mestni svet v Budimpešti je leta 1997 sprejel program urbane prenove, katerega cilji so bili »omogočiti obnovo stavb, infrastrukture in javnega prostora in izboljšati urbano tkivo« (Municipality of Budapest, 2002: 3). V okviru tega programa je mestna občina določila 11 ciljnih območij prenove, ki se je osredotočala na najbolj degradirane soseske v mestu, pri čemer so bili za vsako mestno okrožje določeni ustrezni ukrepi. V Pragi je urbana prenova potekala tako, da so obnovili nekdanja industrijska območja v središču mesta. Eno od teh območij, Karlin, so leta 2002 močno prizadele poplave, pri katerih je bila poplavna voda globlja od 2 m. Čeprav so se pobude za sanacijo Karlina pojavljale že pred
poplavami, so se naložbe vanj zares pospešile šele takoj zatem. Območje leži na bregovih reke Vltave, njegova sanacija pa je pionirski projekt prenove industrijskih območij na podlagi sanacije trgovskih in poslovnih objektov (Sykora, 2007). V Sofiji prenova mestnega središča poteka na podlagi največjega javnega posega v mestu, in sicer gradnje podzemne železnice, za katero se je zamisel oblikovala že med socializmom. Končni vplivi izgradnje podzemne železnice na mestno središče za zdaj še niso jasni.
3.1 Postsocialistični urbanizem v Bukarešti, Budimpešti, Pragi in Sofiji
Po padcu socializma so obravnavana mesta obdržala svoje stare urbanistične meje, manjše spremembe lahko v zadnjih letih opazimo samo v Bukarešti in Sofiji. V Pragi je bila urbanistična in upravna meja določena leta 1974, v Budimpešti pa leta 1950. Kljub temu se je prostorska zgradba teh mest korenito spremenila, saj so se iz industrijsko in proizvodno naravnanih spremenila v postindustrijska mesta, ki temeljijo na
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
34
J. MARIOTTI, J. KOŽELJ
storitvah in trgovini. Ker je bil v teh mestih uveden postsociali-stični urbanizem, se je spremenila tudi njegova institucionalna podlaga (Maier, 1998). Čeprav so bili načrtovalski in gradbeni dokumenti v obravnavanih mestih sprejeti že zelo zgodaj, so bili prvi glavni načrti sprejeti razmeroma pozno, kar kaže na vse večjo birokratizacijo načrtovalskih procesov v postsociali-stičnem obdobju. Zadnji načrt iz obdobja socializma je bil v Pragi sprejet leta 1986. Dopolnjen je bil leta 1994, prvi novi načrt po letu 1989 pa je bil sprejet leta 1999 (češ. Uzemni Plan hlavniho mesta Prahy). Pobude za nov glavni načrt so se v Bukarešti začele leta 1994, prvi načrt po padcu Ceausescuje-vega režima pa je bil sprejet leta 2000 (rom. Planul Urbanistic General). V Budimpešti je bil prvi načrt po letu 1989 sprejet leta 2005 (madž. Altalanos rendezesi tervenek), čeprav so se priprave nanj začele že leta 1997, čemur je leta 1998 sledila tudi javna razprava. Odločitev za izdelavo novega načrta za Sofijo (bol. Obščustrojstven plan), ki naj bi usmerjal preobraz-bene procese po letu 1989, je bila sprejeta že leta 1990, prvi načrt po letu 1989 pa je bil kljub temu odobren šele leta 2009. Ker so bili ti načrti sprejeti razmeroma pozno, so morali upoštevati tekoče gradbene dejavnosti v mestih in privatizacijske procese, ki so že bili na visoki stopnji. Ob glavnih načrtih, ki so bili izdelani za celotno ozemlje mesta in so pravzaprav načrti rabe zemljišč, je obstajalo tudi načrtovanje na lokalni ravni. Te načrtovalske pobude je sprejela in usmerjala lokalna samouprava, ki je bila odgovorna za izvajanje načrtovalskih procesov in izdajanje gradbenih dovoljenj v okviru decentralizacije načrto-valskih procesov. Danes se obravnavana mesta razlikujejo glede na poddimenzije decentralizacije (Stefanovska, 2014). Kljub temu postsocialistična gradbena dovoljenja za nova središča razkrivajo decentralizirano upravno strukturo in spreminjajoče se pristojnosti na različnih ravneh odločanja v mestih. Poleg tega se je zaradi postsocialistične decentralizacije trgovskih dejavnosti oblikovalo mesto, ki se razlikuje od tistega, ki je obstajalo še pred dvajsetimi leti; res pa je, da je dvajset let v zgodovini mesta kratko obdobje.
4 Sklep: nastajanje postsocialistične evropske metropole
V članku je obravnavana urbana preobrazba postsocialističnih mest na podlagi analize pojava središč v Bukarešti, Budimpešti, Pragi in Sofiji, pri čemer so poudarjene razlike in podobnosti med njihovimi lokacijskimi vzorci. Ugotovitve kažejo, da sta padcu socializma sledila razmah potrošništva in korenito preoblikovanje urbane pokrajine, ki sta med drugim simbolizirala demokratizacijo procesov odločanja v obravnavanih mestih. Te spremembe so povzročile intenziven pretok ljudi v novoustanovljenih gospodarskih središčih obravnavanih mest. Hkrati
je z leti pojem mestnega središča izgubil svoj tradicionalni pomen; mestno središče se je iz središča družabnih in verskih dejavnosti ter prostora zgoščene politične oblasti spremenilo v prostor, v katerem prevladujejo gospodarske dejavnosti.
Z decentralizacijo postsocialističnih upravnih procesov se je odločanje v obravnavanih mestih preneslo na lokalno samoupravo. Preobrazba trgovskih objektov ni bila več del načrtovanja na ravni mestne občine, ampak se je prenesla na lokalno samoupravo, kar je ustvarilo kompleksen model medsebojnega učinkovanja urbanizma in politike na različnih ravneh odločanja.
Podobnosti med obravnavanimi mesti po padcu socializma se kažejo v razmahu novih trgovskih objektov, ki so bili zgrajeni v kratkem obdobju dvajsetih let, so številni in skoraj enakega videza. Razlike med njimi so opazne v dinamiki in jakosti rasti trgovin. Poleg tega se razlikujejo tudi vzorci njihove razpršenosti; vzorec razpršitve na mestnem obrobju je v Budimpešti opaznejši kot v Pragi, v Bukarešti pa je tesno povezan s sistemom podzemne železnice. V Sofiji model razpršitve sledi mestni osi vzhod-zahod. Te razlike so posledica različnih kulturnih identitet ter zlasti posebnosti decentralizacije in razlik v upravah obravnavanih mest po padcu socializma, zaradi česar je treba to temo preučevati ločeno za vsako mesto posebej.
Nova središča so ključna za razumevanje prostorskega prestrukturiranja mest po padcu socializma. Različna dinamika rasti in različni vzorci razpršitve središč so se pojavili v samo nekaj več kot dvajsetih letih; med socializmom so bili omejeni in lokalizirani, po njem pa razpršeni in okrepljeni. Po letu 1989 je premik središč na obrobje Bukarešte, Budimpešte, Prage in Sofije prispeval k ponovnemu odkritju in oblikovanju policentričnega modela mesta, kar je zmanjšalo gradnjo v starih mestnih jedrih in omogočilo enakomernejšo porazdelitev virov. Razširitev javnih prometnih omrežij in povečana mobilnost sta pospešila te vzorce razpršitve, optimizirala gradbene dejavnosti in v trdoživa postsocialistična mesta uvedla različne urbane funkcije.
Spreminjajoči se vzorci središč in pojav novih potrošniških prostorov sta najočitnejša znaka premika h kapitalizmu, liberaliziranemu trgu, novi politiki in svetovnim trendom urbane preobrazbe po padcu socializma. Novonastala središča v obravnavanih mestih so novi družbeni prostori z različnimi družabnimi dejavnostmi, ki prispevajo k urbanemu prestrukturiranju mest. Čeprav so na mestnem obrobju, vplivajo na intenziven razvoj v okolici in ustvarjajo sekundarno vitalnost, ki oblikuje metropolitanski življenjski slog. Tudi če ti pogoji ostajajo znotraj istih mestnih meja kot prej, so poglavitno gonilo pro-
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Po sledeh postsocialističnega prestrukturiranja mest: spreminjajoča se središča v srednje- in vzhodnoevropskih prestolnicah
35
storskega prestrukturiranja monocentričnih socialističnih mest v policentrične postsocialistične metropole.
Jasna Mariotti
Queen's University Belfast, School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Belfast, Združeno kraljestvo E-pošta: jasna.mariotti@gmail.com
Janez Koželj
Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za arhitekturo, Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta: janez.kozelj@fa.uni-lj.si
Viri in literatura
Clapham, D. (1995): Privatisation and the east European housing model. Urban Studies, 32(4-5), str. 679-694. DOI: 10.1080/00420989550012834
Czech Statistical Office in Prague (1990-2011) Statistical yearbook of Prague. Praga.
Garb, Y., in Dybicz, T. (2006): The retail revolution in post-socialist central Europe and its lessons. V: Tsenkova, S., in Nedovic-Budic, Z. (ur.): The urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe, str. 231-252. Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/3-7908-1727-9_12
Golubchikov, O. (2004): Urban planning in Russia: Towards the market. European Planning Studies, 12(2), str. 229-247. DOI: 10.1080/0965431042000183950
Golubchikov, O., in Phelps, N. (2009): Post-socialist post-suburbia? Growth machine and the emergence of "edge city" in the metropolitan context of Moscow. Prispevek je bil predstavljen na konferenci z naslovom 3rd International Workshop on Post-Communist Urban Geographies »Actors Shaping Urban Change«, ki je potekala od 17. do 19. septembra v Tartuju v Estoniji. Tipkopis.
Grime, K. (1999): The role of privatization in post socialist urban transition: Budapest, Krakow, Prague and Warsaw. GeoJournal, 49(1), str. 35-42. DOI: 10.1023/A:1007048504472
Harloe, M. (1996): Cities in the transition. V: Andrusz, G., Harloe, M., in Szelenyi, I. (ur.): Cities after socialism - Urban and regional change and conflict in post-socialist societies, str. 1-29. Oxford, Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470712733.ch1
Hirt, S., in Kovachev, A. (2006): The changing spatial structure of post-socialist Sofia. V: Tsenkova, S., in Nedovic-Budic, Z. (ur.): The urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe: Space, institutions and policy, str. 113-130. Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/3-7908-1727-9_6
Hoxha, V., Dimitrovska Andrews, K., in Temeljotov Salaj, A. (2014): Cultural factors affecting urban planners' intentions to regulate public space in Prishtina, Kosovo. Urbani izziv, 25(2), str. 76-89. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-02-001
Hungarian Central Statistical Office in Budapest (1990-2011) Statistical yearbook of Budapest. Budimpešta.
Kadar, B. (2013): Differences in the spatial patterns of urban tourism in Vienna and Prague. Urbani izziv, 24(2), str. 96-111. DOI: 10.5379/urbani--izziv-en-2013-24-02-002
Kok, H., in Kovacs, Z. (1999): The process of suburbanization in the agglomeration of Budapest. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 14(2), str. 119-141. DOI: 10.1007/BF02496818
Kos, D. (2010): Prostorsko urejanje med stroko in piarom. Teorija in praksa, 47(2-3), str. 413-434.
Koželj, J. (1992): O krizi urbanizma in izhodih iz nje. Urbani izziv, 19, str. 20-25.
Koželj, J. (2007): Opredelitev sodobnega mesta. V: Cerpes, I., in Desman, M. (ur.): O urbanizmu: Kaj se dogaja s sodobnim mestom, str. 195208. Ljubljana, Založba Krtina.
Kreja, K. (2006): Spatial imprints of urban consumption: Large scale retail development in Warsaw. V: Tsenkova, S., in Nedovic-Budic, Z. (ur.): The urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe, str. 253-272. Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/3-7908-1727-9_13
Leetmaa, K., in Tammaru, T. (2007): Suburbanization in countries in transition: Destinations of suburbanizers on the Tallinn metropolitan area. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 89(2), str. 127-146. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00244.x
Maier, K. (1998): Czech planning in transition: Assets and deficiencies. International Planning Studies, 3(3), str. 351-365. DOI: 10.1080/13563479808721719
Mandič, S., in Filipovič Hrast, M. (2015): Alternatives to social housing: Applicants' views of various policy options. Urbani izziv, 26(1), str. 6982. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-01-001
Marcuse, P. (1996): Privatization and its discontents: Property rights in land and housing in the transition in eastern Europe. V: Andrusz, G., Harloe, M., in Szelenyi, I. (ur.): Cities after socialism - Urban and regional change and conflict in post-socialist societies, str. 119-191. Oxford, Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470712733.ch5
Municipality of Budapest (2002) Urban Renewal Programme: Budapest 2002. Budimpešta.
Musil, J. (1980): Urbanization in socialist countries. White Plains, NY, M. E. Sharpe.
Musil, J. (1993): Changing urban systems in post-communist societies in central Europe: Analysis and prediction. Urban Studies, 30(6), str. 899906. DOI: 10.1080/00420989320080841
Musil, J. (2005): City development in central and eastern Europe before 1990: Historical context and socialist legacies. V: Hamilton, I. F. E., Dimitrovska Andrews, K., in Pichler-Milanovic, N. (ur.): Transformation of cities in central and eastern Europe: Towards globalization, str. 22-43. Tokio, United Nations University Press.
National Institute of Statistics in Bucharest (1990-2011): Statistical yearbook of Bucharest. Bukarešta.
National Statistical Institute (2009): Sofia in figures 2009. Dostopno na: www.sofia.bg (sneto 10. 9. 2015).
National Statistical Institute in Sofia (1990-2011): Sofia in figures. Sofija.
Nedovic-Budic, Z., Tsenkova, S., in Marcuse, P. (2006): The urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe. V: Tsenkova, S., in Nedovic-Budic, Z. (ur.): The urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe: Space, institutions and policy, str. 3-20. Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/3-7908-1727-9_1
Romania Insider (2012): Bucharest, second most polluted capital in Europe but ranks better then Paris on green areas, 17 May 2012. Dostopno na: http://www.romania-insider.com (sneto 10. 9. 2015).
Rosu, L. I., in Blageanu, A. (2015): Evaluating issues and performance of a public transport network in a post-communist city using a quantitative spatial approach. Urbani izziv, 26(2), str. 103-116. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-02-002
Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999): Characteristics of post-socialist urban transformation in east central Europe. GeoJournal, 49(1), str. 7-16. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006905405818
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
36
J. MARIOTTI, J. KOŽELJ
Sendi, R. (2013): The low housing standard in Slovenia: Low purchasing power as an eternal excuse. Urbani izziv, 24(1), str. 107-124. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2013-24-01-002
Smith, A., in Rochovska, A. (2007): Domesticating neo-liberalism: Everyday lives and the geographies of post-socialist transformations. Geofo-rum, 38(6), str. 1163-1178. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.03.003
Stanilov, K. (2007): Taking stock of post-socialist urban development: A recapitulation. V: Stanilov, K. (ur.): The post-socialist city: Urban form and space transformations in central and eastern Europe after socialism, str. 3-20. Dordrecht, Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6053-3_1
Stark, D. (1992): Path dependence and privatization strategies in east central Europe. East European Politics and Societies, 6, str. 17-54. DOI: 10.1177/0888325492006001003
Stefanovska, J. (2014): Planning the post-socialist city: Urban transformations and changing centralities after socialism. Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana, Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za arhitekturo.
Stefanovska, J., in Koželj, J. (2012): Urban planning and transitional development issues: The case of Skopje, Macedonia. Urbani izziv, 23(1), str. 91-100. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2012-23-01-002
Sykora, L. (1998): Commercial property development in Budapest, Prague and Warsaw. V: Enyedi, G. (ur.): Social change and urban restructuring in central Europe, strt. 109-136. Budimpešta, Akademiai Kiado.
Sykora, L. (2007): Office development and post-communist city formation: The case of Prague. V: Stanilov, K. (ur.): The post-socialist city: Urban form and space transformations in central and eastern Europe after socialism, str. 117-145. Dordrecht, Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6053-3_7
Szelenyi, I. (1996): Cities under socialism - and after. V: Andrusz, G., Harloe, M., in Szelenyi, I. (ur.): Cities after socialism - Urban and regional change and conflict in post-socialist societies, str. 286-317. Oxford, Blackwell.
Tsenkova, S. (2010): Informal settlements in post-communist cities: Diversity factors and patterns. Urbani izziv, 21(2), str. 73-84. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2010-21-02-001
Tsenkova, S. (2011): Venturing into unknown territory: Strategic spatial planning in post-communist cities. Urbani izziv, 22(1), str. 83-99. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2011-22-01-001
Tsenkova, S. (2014): The housing policy nexus and people's responses to housing challenges in post-communist cities. Urbani izziv, 25(2), str. 90-106. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-02-002
United Nations Population Division (2015): World population prospects 2008. Dostopno na: http://esa.un.org (sneto 11. 9. 2015).
Zukin, S. (1991): Landscapes of power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkley, University of California Press.
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
113
UDC: 316.334.56:005.418:711.432(4-11+4-191.2) DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2016-27-01-002
Received: 25 Oct. 2015 Accepted: 22 Feb. 2016
Jasna MARIOTTI Janez KOŽELJ
Tracing post-communist urban restructuring: Changing centralities in central and eastern European capitals
Rapid political and economic changes after the collapse of communism led to dynamic processes of urban restructuring in cities, replacing old patterns and models of growth with ones in which capital and the market economy were central to growth and development. The transformation towards a market economy and the reintroduction of land ownership required the establishment of a new and decentralised decision-making system, with direct consequences for cities' structure and form. As part of these urban transformations, there were clear changes in location patterns of retail structures in cities, illustrating diverse patterns of post-communist cities' spatial organisation. This article explores and provides insight
into some special features of this transformation, both before and after the collapse of communism, in Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia. Examining these cities offers an overview of post-communist spatial restructuring processes and explores their changing centralities, which ultimately led to fragmented cities and disintegrated urban fabric. This comparative study also outlines how different development patterns can arise in cities that shared a similar past.
Keywords: centralities, decentralisation, fragmentation, peripheries, post-communist cities
Urbani izziv, letnik 11, št. 1, 2016
114
J. MARIOTTI, J. KOŽELJ
1 Introduction
The sudden transition from communism had a strong impact on the dynamics and intensity of urban development in most central and eastern European cities. The reintroduction of ownership and privatisation were central factors that contributed to cities' spatial restructuring (Harloe, 1996; Ne-dovic-Budic et al., 2006; Stanilov, 2007; Hoxha et al., 2014; Tsenkova, 2014). The urban crisis that occurred as a result of this restructuring was continuous evolution and adaptation; it was not limited only to urban developments, but also involved broader political and socioeconomic aspects (Koželj, 1992). These processes resulted in complex urban transformations, affecting employment, the housing market, investment and demographics in cities.
The growth of cities under communism resulted in territorial expansion, but less physical change was seen in city centres (Musil, 1993). The urban transformations ofpost-commu-nist cities reinforced these trends of spatial dispersion; cities continued to expand on their outskirts, further contributing to suburbanisation and peripheral development as a particular aspect of urban growth (Koželj, 2007). This suburbanisation was shaped by political and economic factors (Kok & Kovacs, 1999), and the growth of the urban fringes and the outflow of people to the periphery in cities in transition commenced shortly after 1990. The formation of a market economy, the growing interests of real estate developers and the planning initiatives of the municipalities neighbouring the capitals resulted in the emergence of low-density neighbourhoods with single-family homes, which was a desirable housing choice for many (Leetmaa & Tammaru, 2007). These new settlement patterns impacted not only the housing market in cities, but also the social and spatial segregation of the city and its demographics. The emergence of informal settlements in the same period contributed further to problems of social exclusion, housing provision and spatial planning (Tsenkova, 2010; Mandič & Filipovič Hrast, 2015).
In parallel with these spatial restructuring processes, the city centre was losing its housing function, becoming more of an attraction than a living space (Kadar, 2013). At the same time, the periphery gained appeal through commercial activities introduced to accommodate local residents' needs. As a result, the transformation of retail structures in cities emerged as a central aspect of the transformation (Sykora, 1998; Sailer-Fliege, 1999; Hirt & Kovachev, 2006; Stefanovska & Koželj, 2012). In this context, the periphery proved to be a better location for these new programmatic structures, adding new appeal to new parts of the city. The new centralities, or places
where large agglomerations of offices and commercial buildings are located, concentrated consumer services and created new forms of urban entities. Although peripheral, these new centralities were not separate from the old city centre; they coexisted with them, which was possible in part because of the increased connectivity between the city centre and its outskirts.
New decision-making processes in post-communist planning certainly facilitated these changes, ultimately transforming the urban landscapes and the perception of cities. The changes in urban planning were a fundamental drive for the spatial transformations in cities. Planning became a developer- and market-driven process, which was often too difficult to control, further contributing to the crisis in planners' legitimacy (Kos, 2010). Furthermore, the centralised planning system under communism was replaced with a decentralised one, giving power to local government through a series of legislative changes, contributing to spatial disorder and uneven urban development (Tsenkova, 2011).
This article reports on the location patterns of centralities as part of the urban restructuring of post-communist European cities. The term centrality refers to a concentration of commercial activities and central city functions that draw large amounts of people to a certain location. A comparative study was carried out to analyse the characteristics, evolution and the location patterns of centralities built before and after the collapse of communism in Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia.
The main objective is to highlight the spatial restructuring of cities, drawing relationships among the location patterns of centralities, urban planning processes and their dynamics. Studying these aspects contributes to a better understanding of urban transformation processes after the collapse of communism, emphasising spatial restructuring through changing centralities. The central research questions are: What are the location patterns of centralities in these cities before and after communism? What drove the emergence of centralities in the post-communist context ?
Section one briefly reviews urban transformation in central and eastern European capitals. Section two examines spatial restructuring and centralities built under communism in the four cities by studying their location patterns. Section three outlines some aspects of post-communist urban transformations by studying emerging centralities and location patterns. The final section offers concluding remarks on the changing centralities and their location patterns before and after the change, outlining similarities and differences in their dispersion patterns.
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Tracing post-communist urban restructuring: Changing centralities in central and eastern European capitals
115
Figure 1: Centralities built before 1989 in a) Bucharest, b) Budapest, c) Prague and d) Sofia (illustration: Jasna Mariotti).
Note: All cities are shown at the same scale and their current administrative and planning area is outlined. These drawings also show the current metro lines in these cities, their historical city centres and the centralities built under communism.
2 Spatial restructuring of cities under communism
Under communism, cities developed growth patterns as a result of the centralised organisation of the state. Under such organisation, a distinctive feature of cities was the abolition of private ownership (Szelenyi, 1996; Musil, 2005), which fundamentally influenced cities' planning and development.
During this period, the share of urban population grew and capital cities increased in population. This was a result of the urbanisation policies and strategies of the communist organisation of the state, which included comprehensive planning and distribution of industries in cities - an integral element in the development of communist societies (Musil, 1980). Under communism, Bucharest grew by 312% and Sofia by 228%, and Prague and Budapest grew by 129% and 123%, respectively (World population prospects, 2008). To accommodate these growing populations, housing estates were built on the cities' outskirts, resulting in larger urban territories and fundamentally different spatial configurations. Prefabricated construction accelerated peripheral development, creating high-density neighbourhoods and alleviating housing shortages. The absence of a property market and the existence of a centrally controlled planning system impacted urban development patterns, making these transformations possible.
Urban planning was reduced to fulfilling centrally coordinated state ideologies (Maier, 1998; Golubchikov, 2004). During this period, urban planning operated in a system in which the land was nationalised and the central governments were responsible for decision-making at all levels, ultimately leading to highly controlled urban development. As a result, planning decisions made at the central level were intended to shape a concept of
centralities that was based on ideas of a city with secondary and tertiary centres. Nevertheless, these visions were almost never realised because throughout the period the main focus was on housing in cities, accommodating their population growth and increasing urbanisation at the national level. Such decisions were critical in establishing a monocentric city with a strong centre that housed all the city's functions.
The communist-era retail centres in Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia were either closely linked to the city centres or in them (Figure 1). Their location was state-controlled and, like other urban properties, they were also state-owned. The four cities illustrate localised dispersion patterns of centralities built before 1989, which were very few and limited in number, and were located close to the topographical and historical city centres. As a result of these trends, the consumer patterns in these cities were also localised and highly controlled, together with goods sold in them. Nevertheless, the buildings were masterpieces of communist architecture and thinking (Figure 2).
The Kotva department store built in Prague between 1966 and 1974 was the first department store built under communism in Prague (Figure 2c). When completed, it was also the largest department store in Czechoslovakia. Kotva exemplified communist architecture, built from hexagonal prisms stacked on top of each other, and its dynamic façade is an outstanding example of brutalism. The building was built using raw industrial materials such as iron, glass and concrete and, although located in the city's historic neighbourhood, its complex structure stands out boldly. Shortly after its opening, the building became a city icon and the building now has protected status. The second department store built under communism in Prague was My on National Avenue (Narodni trida). Built in 1978, My is also a prime example of 1970s Czech architecture and also has protected status. Unlike
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
116
J. MARIOTTI, J. KOŽELJ
Figure 2: Centralities built before 1989 in a) Bucharest, Unirea, 1976 (1989), b) Budapest, Skala Metro, 1984, c) Prague, Kotva, 1966-1974, and d) Sofia, Central Department Store, 1957 (2000) (photo: Jasna Mariotti).
Kotva, its structure is rather simple and linear, but it still has outstanding qualities. The Unirea shopping centre in Bucharest (Figure 2a), built in 1976 and expanded in 1989, was the largest department store in communist Romania. Although this Romanian shopping centre was built in the city centre and on Union Boulevard (Bulevardul Unirii), a powerful axis created to accommodate Ceau^escu's grandeur vision for Bucharest, Unirea does not share the character of the surrounding buildings. It was nevertheless an influential example of Romanian consumerism in both its size and appearance. The original Unirea building had large windows, but these cannot be seen today because they are covered by billboards, which make the original structure barely visible. The Central Department Store in Sofia opened in 1957 and was a monument of communist consumerism in Bulgaria (Figure 2d). It was built on one of the city's main axes and it is a monumental building symbolising Sofia's modernisation, dominating the city centre with its size and footprint. Although they have been transformed and sometimes expanded, these shopping centres are still a powerful presence in the urban fabric of Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia; their appearance and authoritative footprints docu-
ment patterns of communist consumerism in a city meant for socialist men.
3 Post-communist urban
restructuring: Changing centralities
The urban transformations of post-communist cities are a result of complex social, economic, cultural and political changes. At the background of these processes was privatisation (Stark, 1992; Clapham, 1995; Markuse, 1996; Grime, 1999; Stanilov, 2007; Sendi, 2013), or property restitution, which changed the market and, arguably, conditions for urban development. These transformation processes resulted in the triumph of neoliberalism in post-communist cities' development patterns (Sailer-Fliege, 1999; Smith & Rochovska, 2007; Golubchikov & Phelps, 2009). The post-communist transformation of Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia took place through densification of the urban fabric and was achieved through a continual increase in homes, offices, and shopping centres.
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Tracing post-communist urban restructuring: Changing centralities in central and eastern European capitals
117
Table 1: Housing stock per 1,000 inhabitants in Bucharest, Budapest,
Budapest	396	466	516
Prague	424	473	n/a
Sofia	409	437	471
Source: Czech Statistical Office in Prague (1990-2011), Hungarian Central Statistical Office in Budapest (1990-2011), National Statistical Institute in Sofia (1990-2011) and National Institute of Statistics in Bucharest (1990-2011).
Table 2: Average members per census household in Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia.
City	1991	2011
Bucharest	2.8 (1995)	2.6 (1999)
Budapest	2.2 (2006)	2.3 (2009)
Prague	2.2	2.1
Sofia	2.5	2.2
Source: Czech Statistical Office in Prague (1990-2011), Hungarian Central Statistical Office in Budapest (1990-2011), National Statistical Institute in Sofia (1990-2011) and National Institute of Statistics in Bucharest (1990-2011).
Prague and Sofia.
City	1991	2001	2011
Bucharest	n/a	396	411
Table 3: Building permits issued in Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia.
City	2000		2005		2010	
	Residential	Non-residential	Residential	Non-residential	Residential	Non-residential
Bucharest	n/a	n/a	1,254	244	833	136
Budapest	1,737	377	1,377	152	811	84
Prague	7,761	2,383	7,485	1,832	4,819	1,783
Sofia	n/a	n/a	1,226	387	596	205
Source: Czech Statistical Office in Prague (1990-2011), Hungarian Central Statistical Office in Budapest (1990-2011), National Statistical Institute in Sofia (1990-2011) and National Institute of Statistics in Bucharest (1990-2011).
Since the collapse of communism, the housing stock in the four cities has been constantly increasing (Table 1). The continually growing numbers of homes in these cities infilled empty areas, although their populations in the same period changed at a different pace. Between 1990 and 2010, Bucharest's population decreased by 8.59% and Budapest's population decreased by 14.7%. The populations of Prague and Sofia increased by 2.95% and 9.47%, respectively, despite the larger increase in their housing stocks. These two different dynamics - the housing stock and the city's population - spatially disrupted the urban fabric of the four cities. In part, these transformations also resulted from the decreasing size of households in these cities (Table 2).
In Bucharest, the average members per census household decreased from 2.8 to 2.6 from 1995 to 1999, in Prague from 2.2 to 2.1 from 1991 to 2011 and in Sofia from 2.5 to 2.2 in the same period. Budapest was an exception: the average increased (from 2.2 to 2.3 between 2006 and 2009, which is the only period for which data are available); however, at the national level in Hungary that number is stable in the same period, at 2.6.
Parallel to these records of decline, the construction activities in these cities declined as well, as seen in the building permits issued between 2000 and 2010 in the four cities according to data from the national statistical offices from these cities (Table 3). However, there are differences among the building permits issued for residential and non-residential build-
Table 4. Ratio between population and cars in Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia.
City	1990	2000	2005
Bucharest	8.16*	5.01	4.34
Budapest	4.28	3.20	2.84
Prague	4.14	1.90	1.95
Sofia	n/a	2.90	2.00
Note: * Data are available for 1991.
Source: Czech Statistical Office in Prague (1990-2011), Hungarian Central Statistical Office in Budapest (1990-2011), National Statistical Institute in Sofia (1990-2011) and National Institute of Statistics in Bucharest (1990-2011).
ings among these cities. For example, in Prague in 2010 the building permits for non-residential buildings corresponded to 36.9% of the residential ones, and the situation was similar in Sofia in 2005 and 2010, when the building permits for non-residential buildings corresponded to 31.5% and 34.3% of the residential building permits. Lower percentages between the non-residential and residential building permits are noted in Bucharest and in Budapest, resulting in higher numbers of residential buildings than non-residential ones, despite the declining demographics during the same period.
In addition to these building initiatives, major spatial restructuring occurred in Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia. This restructuring resulted from the emergence of centralities: places of greater economic agglomeration that were different in appearance and locality from those built under communism. In
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
118
J. MARIOTTI, J. KOŽELJ
Figure 3: Centralities built after 1989 in a) Bucharest, b) Budapest, c) Prague and d) Sofia (illustration: Jasna Mariotti).
Note: All cities are shown at the same scale and their current administrative and planning area is outlined. These drawings also show the current metro lines in these cities and centralities in the form of new post-communist shopping centres.
the post-communist context, the new centralities, in the form of shopping centres, are guiding the spatial restructuring of the urban fabric, dominated by landscapes of consumption (Zukin, 1991). The changing patterns and localities of centralities are a feature of a city in transition (Garb & Dybicz, 2006), and the diversity of the consumption patterns is one of the most significant characteristics of cities after the collapse of communism (Sailer-Fliege, 1999; Kreja, 2006). Under such conditions, in post-communist contexts the retail environments in cities have changed and the geographical constraints that existed during communism were relaxed due to increased accessibility and mobility (Rosu & Blageanu, 2015).
The new retail structures in post-communist cities have different spatial arrangements and follow a different location logic, appearing in clusters or as isolated entities near metro lines; where these were unavailable, new metro stops were planned and built. Most post-communist centralities were also positioned next to highway exits because cars were the best way to access them. As a result, the four cities saw a dramatic increase in the number of vehicles after 1989, which at present is among the highest in Europe (Table 4). In Bucharest, the ratio between the population and cars declined from 8.16 to 4.34 between 1991 and 2005, and in Budapest from 4.28 to 2.84 in the same period. In Prague it declined from 4.14 to 1.95 between 1990 and 2005, and in Sofia from 2.9 to 2.0, resulting in pressure on the cities' infrastructure and frequent traffic congestion. Sofia now has one of the highest shares of cars among European capitals, with 546 cars per 1,000 people, compared to Vienna (397 cars per 1,000), London (331), Berlin (319) and Madrid (437; Sofia in figures, 2009: 8). The volume of cars in Bucharest increased by 71% between 1991 and 2005, greatly contributing to pollution in the city; Bucharest is in fact the second-most polluted capital in Europe, immediately after Sofia (Romania Insider, 2012).
The emergence of centralities in Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia after 1989 illustrates patterns of diverse intensification of functions within their urban fabric, and it also shows the rise of new centres outside the historical city centre (Figure 3). The decentralisation of retail activities, also described as a "retail revolution" (Garb & Dybicz, 2006), was a salient phenomenon of post-communist cities. These peripheral developments were made possible through increased connectivity, accessibility and interaction between the outskirts and the traditional city centre, blending together or obscuring the existing hierarchical levels (Stefanovska, 2014). The expansion of the new centralities occurred gradually because in the early 1990s small shops emerged, especially in the former communist housing estates. Shortly after, large shopping malls started to appear in these cities, each new one attempting to compete in size with ones previously built, therefore creating an exponential growth trend. Budapest and Prague are leading this process of de-centering through new shopping centres; in Bucharest and in Sofia, the number of shopping centres is projected to increase after the economic downturn is over.
Regardless of this intensified development, the architecture of post-communist shopping centres, each seeking to be larger than the previous, is highly generic. This contrasts with communist architectural precedents in the four cities, which were pioneers in construction and maintained some humane aspects of shopping. Currently, prefabricated boxes filled with commercial activities are being built rather quickly, not exhibiting any contextual understanding or qualities, but solely a commercial grandeur (Figure 4).
Despite these growth trends, recently there have been attempts to control the rapid and abundant emergence of new shopping centres in Budapest through the Plaza Stop law, a first effort towards controlling commercial developments. The Plaza Stop law is an alteration of the 1997 General Law on modifying
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Tracing post-communist urban restructuring: Changing centralities in central and eastern European capitals
119
Figure 4: Centralities built after 1989 in a) Bucharest, Plaza Romania, 2005, b) Budapest, Arena Plaza, 2007, c) Prague, Letnany, 1999, and d) Sofia, Mall, 2010 (photo: Jasna Mariotti).
and protecting the built environment. According to the latest changes, it is forbidden to build commercial buildings larger than 300 m2. Expansions of current commercial buildings are also prohibited, but exemptions are possible and personal approval of the minister of economic affairs is needed in such cases. The Plaza Stop law was in effect from January 1st, 2012 until the end of 2014; the results of such legislative changes are yet to be seen.
In parallel with these trends of control over peripheral developments, there have also recently been attempts to revitalise the inner city areas of Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia. Since 2010, in Bucharest there has been an inner city gentri-fication through the introduction of commercial activities to the central city area, which was overlooked in the communist period. The Urban Renewal Programme was approved by the General Assembly of Budapest in 1997 and aimed at "providing a means of renovating buildings, infrastructure and public space, along with improving the urban fabric" (Municipality of Budapest, 2002: 3). As a result of this programme, Budapest approved eleven target areas to be considered in the
programme; the revitalisation centred on the most derelict neighbourhoods in the city and specified measures for each urban district. In Prague, urban renewal took place through regeneration of former industrial sites in the inner city. One of those areas, Karlin, was heavily damaged by floods over two meters deep in 2002. Although earlier attempts to redevelop it started even before the floods, the area emerged as a place for investment that accelerated immediately afterwards. Karlin is located on the banks of the Vltava River and is a pioneering project for regenerating industrial areas through commercial and office redevelopment (Sykora, 2007). In Sofia, inner city renewal is driven by the largest public intervention in the city, the construction of the metro, an idea that started under communism. The full effects of metro construction on the city centre are yet to be seen.
3.1 Post-communist urban planning in Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia
After the collapse of communism, the four cities maintained their old planning boundaries, with minor changes only in
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
120
J. MARIOTTI, J. KOŽELJ
Bucharest and Sofia in recent years. In Prague, the planning and administrative boundary was established in 1974, and in Budapest in 1950. Nevertheless the spatial structure of these cities changed dramatically because the city was moving from being industrial- and production-oriented towards a post-industrial city, which is service- and commerce-driven. Because post-communist urban planning was introduced in these cities, its institutional base changed (Maier, 1998). Despite the early enactment of planning and building acts in these cities, the first master plans were adopted rather late, illustrating the increased bureaucracy of planning processes in post-communist contexts. In Prague, the latest plan adopted under communism was from 1986. This plan was revised in 1994; however, the first new plan after 1989 was adopted in 1999 (Cz. Uzemni Plan blavnibo mesta Praby). The planning initiatives for a new masterplan in Bucharest started in 1994 and the first plan after the collapse of the Ceau^escu regime was approved in 2000 (Rom. Planul Urbanistic General). In Budapest, the first plan after 1989 was adopted in 2005 (Hung. Altalanos rendezesi tervenek), although the preparatory processes started in 1997 and were followed by a public discussion in 1998. A decision to produce a new plan for Sofia (Bulg. Obsc ustrojstven plan), one to guide the transformation processes after 1989, was made in 1990. Nevertheless, the first plan after 1989 in Sofia was approved only in 2009. Because these plans were adopted rather late, they had to deal with ongoing construction activities in these cities and privatisation processes at an advanced stage. In addition to master plans, which were made for the entire urban territory and are in fact land-use plans, planning at the local level is also present. These planning initiatives were adopted and guided by local government, which was given the responsibility to conduct planning and issue building permits as part of decentralising the planning processes. Currently there are differences among the four cities depending on the sub-dimensions of decentralisation (Stefanovska, 2014). Nevertheless, post-communist building permits for new cen-tralities show decentralisation of the governing structure and changing competences at different levels of decision-making in the cities. In addition, the post-communist decentralisation of retail activities ultimately resulted in a different city than the one that existed only twenty years earlier, even though twenty years is a short period in urban history.
4 Conclusion: The making of a post-communist European metropolis
This article examined the urban transformation of post-communist cities based on the emergence of centralities in Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia, and it highlighted the differences and similarities in their location patterns. It also shows that there was a proliferation of consumerism and
powerful reshaping of urban landscapes after the collapse of communism, which also symbolised the democratisation of the decision-making processes in these cities. These changes resulted in an intense flow of people around these newly established economies in the four cities. In parallel, the concept of the city centre lost its traditional meaning over the years and shifted from being a centre of civic and religious activities and a place with concentration of political power to a place where business is dominant.
Through the decentralisation of post-communist governing processes, decision-making in the four cities was transferred to local government. Transformation of the retail structure in these cities was no longer part of planning at a city level, but devolved to local government, creating a complex model of interplay between urban planning and politics at different levels of decision-making.
The similarities among these cities after the fall of communism are shown by the proliferation of new retail structures built in only twenty years, which were numerous and generic in their appearance. The differences among them are shown by the retail units' growth dynamics and intensity. More importantly, the dispersion patterns are not the same in these cities; the pattern of peripheral dispersion in Budapest is more evident than that in Prague, and in Bucharest it is closely tied to the metro system. In Sofia, the dispersion model follows the east-west city axis. These differences result from different cultural identities, but more importantly from the decentralisation characteristics and governing differences in these cities after communism, which argues for a contextual approach to studying this topic.
The newly emerged centralities are fundamental for understanding the spatial restructuring of cities after communism. The different models of growth dynamics and dispersion patterns of centralities emerged in just over twenty years; they were limited and localised under communism, and dispersed and augmented after communism. After 1989, the shift of centralities towards the peripheries of Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Sofia contributed to a rediscovery and formation of a polycentric city model, releasing the pressure of development in historic city centres and providing more equal distribution of resources. The extension of public transport networks and increased mobility facilitated these dispersion patterns, optimising building activities and adding diverse urban functions throughout these resilient post-communist cities.
The changing patterns of centralities and the emergence of new spaces for consumerism are the most obvious signs of the move towards capitalism, a liberalised market, new politics and global trends in the urban transformations after communism.
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016
Tracing post-communist urban restructuring: Changing centralities in central and eastern European capitals
121
The newly emerged centralities in the four cities are their new social spaces, enlivened with an array of social activities, contributing to the cities' urban restructuring. Although the locations of the newly emerged centralities are peripheral, they generate intense development in their surroundings and create a secondary vitality that produces a metropolitan lifestyle. Although they remain within the same city boundaries, these conditions are a fundamental driver for spatially restructuring monocentric communist cities into polycentric post-communist metropolises.
Jasna Mariotti
Queen's University Belfast, School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Belfast, United Kingdom E-mail: jasna.mariotti@gmail.com
Janez Koželj
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture, Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: janez.kozelj@fa.uni-lj.si
References
Clapham, D. (1995) Privatisation and the east European housing model. Urban Studies, 32(4-5), pp. 679-694. DOI: 10.1080/00420989550012834
Czech Statistical Office in Prague (1990-2011) Statistical yearbook of Prague. Prague.
Garb, Y. & Dybicz, T. (2006) The retail revolution in post-socialist central Europe and its lessons. In: Tsenkova, S. & Nedovic-Budic, Z. (eds.) The urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe, pp. 231-252. Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/3-7908-1727-9_12
Golubchikov, O. (2004) Urban planning in Russia: Towards the market. European Planning Studies, 12(2), pp. 229-247. DOI: 10.1080/0965431042000183950
Golubchikov, O. & Phelps, N. (2009) Post-socialist post-suburbia? Growth machine and the emergence of "edge city" in the metropolitan context of Moscow. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Post-Communist Urban Geographies "Actors Shaping Urban Change", 17-19 September, Tartu, Estonia. Typescript.
Grime, K. (1999) The role of privatization in post socialist urban transition: Budapest, Krakow, Prague and Warsaw. GeoJournal, 49(1), pp. 3542. DOI: 10.1023/A:1007048504472
Harloe, M. (1996) Cities in the transition. In: Andrusz, G., Harloe, M. & Szelenyi, I. (eds.) Cities after socialism - Urban and regional change and conflict in post-socialist societies, pp. 1-29. Oxford, Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470712733.ch1
Hirt, S. & Kovachev, A. (2006) The changing spatial structure of post-socialist Sofia. In: Tsenkova, S. & Nedovic-Budic, Z. (eds.) The urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe: Space, institutions and policy, pp. 113-130. Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/3-7908-1727-9_6
Hoxha, V., Dimitrovska Andrews, K. & Temeljotov Salaj, A. (2014) Cultural factors affecting urban planners' intentions to regulate public space in Prishtina, Kosovo. Urbani izziv, 25(2), pp. 76-89. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-02-001
Hungarian Central Statistical Office in Budapest (1990-2011) Statistical yearbook of Budapest. Budapest.
Kadar, B. (2013) Differences in the spatial patterns of urban tourism in
Vienna and Prague. Urbani izziv, 24(2), pp. 96-111. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2013-24-02-002
Kok, H. & Kovacs, Z. (1999) The process of suburbanization in the agglomeration of Budapest. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 14(2), pp. 119-141. DOI: 10.1007/BF02496818
Kos, D. (2010) Prostorsko urejanje med stroko in piarom. Teorija in praksa, 47(2-3), pp. 413-434.
Koželj, J. (1992) O krizi urbanizma in izhodih iz nje. Urbani izziv, 19, pp. 20-25.
Koželj, J. (2007) Opredelitev sodobnega mesta. In: Cerpes, I. & Desman, M. (eds.) O urbanizmu: Kaj se dogaja s sodobnim mestom, pp. 195208. Ljubljana, Založba Krtina.
Kreja, K. (2006) Spatial imprints of urban consumption: Large scale retail development in Warsaw. In: Tsenkova, S. & Nedovic-Budic, Z. (eds.) The urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe, pp. 253-272. Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/3-7908-1727-9_13
Leetmaa, K. & Tammaru, T. (2007) Suburbanization in countries in transition: Destinations of suburbanizers on the Tallinn metropolitan area. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 89(2), pp. 127-146. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00244.x
Maier, K. (1998) Czech planning in transition: Assets and deficiencies. International Planning Studies, 3(3), pp. 351-365. DOI: 10.1080/13563479808721719
Mandič, S. & Filipovič Hrast, M. (2015) Alternatives to social housing: Applicants' views of various policy options. Urbani izziv, 26(1), pp. 6982. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-01-001
Marcuse, P. (1996) Privatization and its discontents: Property rights in land and housing in the transition in eastern Europe. In: Andrusz, G., Harloe, M. & Szelenyi, I. (eds.) Cities after socialism - Urban and regional change and conflict in post-socialist societies, pp. 119-191. Oxford, Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470712733.ch5
Municipality of Budapest (2002) Urban Renewal Programme: Budapest 2002. Budapest.
Musil, J. (1980) Urbanization in socialist countries. White Plains, NY, M. E. Sharpe.
Musil, J. (1993) Changing urban systems in post-communist societies in central Europe: Analysis and prediction. Urban Studies, 30(6), pp. 899906. DOI: 10.1080/00420989320080841
Musil, J. (2005) City development in central and eastern Europe before 1990: Historical context and socialist legacies. In: Hamilton, I. F. E., Dimitrovska Andrews, K. & Pichler-Milanovic, N. (eds.) Transformation of cities in central and eastern Europe: Towards globalization, pp. 22-43. Tokyo, United Nations University Press.
National Institute of Statistics in Bucharest (1990-2011) Statistical yearbook of Bucharest. Bucharest.
National Statistical Institute (2009) Sofia in figures 2009. Available at: www.sofia.bg (accessed 10 Sept. 2015).
National Statistical Institute in Sofia (1990-2011). Sofia in figures. Sofia.
Nedovic-Budic, Z., Tsenkova, S. & Marcuse, P. (2006) The urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe. In: Tsenkova, S. & Nedovic-Budic, Z. (eds.) The urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe: Space, institutions and policy, pp. 3-20. Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/3-7908-1727-9_1
Romania Insider (2012) Bucharest, second most polluted capital in Europe but ranks better then Paris on green areas, 17 May 2012. Available at: http://www.romania-insider.com (accessed 10 Sept. 2015).
Rosu, L. I. & Blageanu, A. (2015) Evaluating issues and performance of a public transport network in a post-communist city using a quantitative
Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016
27
J. MARIOTTI, J. KOŽELJ
spatial approach. Urbani izziv, 26(2), pp. 103-116. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-02-002
Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999) Characteristics of post-socialist urban transformation in east central Europe. GeoJournal, 49(1), pp. 7-16. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006905405818
Sendi, R. (2013) The low housing standard in Slovenia: Low purchasing power as an eternal excuse. Urbani izziv, 24(1), pp. 107-124. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2013-24-01-002
Smith, A. & Rochovska, A. (2007) Domesticating neo-liberalism: Everyday lives and the geographies of post-socialist transformations. Geofo-rum, 38(6), pp. 1163-1178. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.03.003
Stanilov, K. (2007) Taking stock of post-socialist urban development: A recapitulation. In: Stanilov, K. (ed.) The post-socialist city: Urban form and space transformations in central and eastern Europe after socialism, pp. 3-20. Dordrecht, Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6053-3_1
Stark, D. (1992) Path dependence and privatization strategies in east central Europe. East European Politics and Societies, 6, pp. 17-54. DOI: 10.1177/0888325492006001003
Stefanovska, J. (2014) Planning the post-socialist city: Urban transformations and changing centralities after socialism. Doctoral thesis. Ljubljana, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture.
Stefanovska, J. & Koželj, J. (2012) Urban planning and transitional development issues: The case of Skopje, Macedonia. Urbani izziv, 23(1), pp. 91-100. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2012-23-01-002
Sykora, L. (1998) Commercial property development in Budapest, Prague and Warsaw. In: Enyedi, G. (ed.) Social change and urban restructuring in central Europe, pp. 109-136. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiado.
Sykora, L. (2007) Office development and post-communist city formation: The case of Prague. In: Stanilov, K. (ed.) The post-socialist city: Urban form and space transformations in central and eastern Europe after socialism, pp. 117-145. Dordrecht, Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6053-3_7
Szelenyi, I. (1996) Cities under socialism - and after. In: Andrusz, G., Harloe, M. & Szelenyi, I. (eds.) Cities after socialism - Urban and regional change and conflict in post-socialist societies, pp. 286-317. Oxford, Blackwell.
Tsenkova, S. (2010) Informal settlements in post-communist cities: Diversity factors and patterns. Urbani izziv, 21(2), pp. 73-84. DOI: 10.5379/ urbani-izziv-en-2010-21-02-001
Tsenkova, S. (2011) Venturing into unknown territory: Strategic spatial planning in post-communist cities. Urbani izziv, 22(1), pp. 83-99. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2011-22-01-001
Tsenkova, S. (2014) The housing policy nexus and people's responses to housing challenges in post-communist cities. Urbani izziv, 25(2), pp. 90-106. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-02-002
United Nations Population Division (2015) World population prospects 2008. Available at: http://esa.un.org (accessed 11 Sept. 2015).
Zukin, S. (1991) Landscapes of power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkley, University of California Press.
Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016