Beyond gentrification: Diversified neighbourhood upgrading in the inner city of Budapest

Abstract

The concept of gentrification has been extensively used in post-socialist context in association with neighbourhood renewal processes, despite the exact meaning of the term and its social effects not always being sufficiently clarified. This paper builds upon empirical research from downtown Budapest. Our investigation primarily focused on the interplay of three groups of stakeholders involved in urban renewal: politicians, investors and residents. On the basis of our multi-dimensional analysis, we could identify three main types of upgrading: classical gentrification (with two sub-types), as well as incumbent upgrading and soft forms of revitalisation. In the studied neighbourhoods, a mixture of these forms of upgrading could be identified, reflecting a diversified rejuvenation. Gentrification was spatially limited to poverty ridden neighbourhoods subject to local government organised regeneration programmes. The predominance of soft forms of revitalisation is a function of housing market mechanisms as well as the planning control of local districts, which in general together create a healthy social mix despite pervasive regeneration activities.

Profile of tourists visiting cultural heritage cities: Comparative study of selected cities in Central Europe

“…Congestion and tourist business development are most often observed in the historical parts of these cities at sites that are included on UNESCO's list of world cultural heritage sites. Both cities have a high concentration of hotels in historic centers (Simpson 1999;Dumbrovská & Fialová 2014;Kovacs et al 2015).…”

The kaleidoscope of gentrification in post-socialist cities

“…Few terms have sparked such intense and excited debate among urban researchers as ‘gentrification’ (Hamnett, 1991; Lees, 2000), which has become a single label for relatively diverse socio-spatial processes with different dynamics of physical regeneration and population change (Bernt, 2016, 2018), including ‘commercial’ (Beauregard, 1986), ‘entrepreneurial’ (in CEE, Pastak and Kährik, 2016) or ‘environmental gentrification’ (Bouzarovski et al, 2018; Rigolon and Németh, 2018). The chaos in terminology associated with gentrification was criticised by Rose (1984), Beauregard (1986), Bourne (1993), and in the CEE context by Sýkora (1993), Kovács et al (2015) and Bernt (2016). It seemed as if gentrification had ‘broken loose’ – everyone was researching it, but everyone captured it differently.…”

“…Although the basic principles of post-socialist transformation were similar in CEE countries, there were also significant differences in the pace and depth of the process, while local specificities survived (Kovács et al, 2015; Ouředníček and Pospišilová, 2016; Sýkora, 2005). As a result of privatisation and economic restructuring, income disparities gradually grew while, owing to the dismantling of the socialist welfare regime, social subsidies largely disappeared.…”

A városi diverzitás és a városrehabilitáció kapcsolatának társadalomföldrajzi vizsgálata Józsefvárosban

“…A kelet-közép-európai szocializmus megszűnése óta számos kutatás foglalkozott a szegregáció kialakulásához, felerősödéséhez vezető folyamatokkal, melyek között említhető a szuburbanizáció (TAMMARU, T. 2005, OREDNICEK, M. 2007, LEETMAA, K. et al 2009, a városrehabilitáció és dzsentrifikáció (SYKORA, L. 2005, TEMELOVA, J. 2007, KOVÁCS, Z. et al 2013, a demográfiai és életmódbeli változások (BUZAR, S. et al, 2007;HAASE, A. et al 2012 (1949,1960,1970) valamint az 57 alkerületre, két népszámlálás (1960,1970) időpontjában. KOVÁCS Z. és SZABÓ B.…”

“…Összefoglalva, a józsefvárosi lakásállomány minősége jelentősen javult az elmúlt két évtizedben. Az újépítésű lakások és a városrehabilitáció megjelenése a magasabb jövedelmű háztartások folyamatos és tartós jelenlétét eredményezték (KOVÁCS Z. et al 2013). Ehhez társult a bérlakások jelentős súlya, ami budapesti szinten átlagon felüli mobilitást tesz lehetővé.…”