Re-Shaping Budapest: Large Housing Estates and their (Un)Planned Centers

2022

Self Cite

This study examines the changes undergone by urban centers within Greater Budapest’s extension area, which was annexed to the capital of Hungary in 1950, and which is, with minor modifications, equivalent to the outer zone today. The article compares the development methods of two different political systems: state socialism (i.e., the communist regime) between 1950 and 1990, and post-socialist capitalism after 1990. Over a longer period, the urban development of Budapest has made a long but circular journey from decentralized to a decentralized–disjointed socio-spatial development system, passing through a centrally-planned communist era between 1945 and 1990. Nevertheless, closer examination of this process reveals that several paradigm shifts took place in the design methodology, which was strongly influenced by socio-economic changes. These shifts, layered upon the inherited structure, as well as the neglect or preference of different systems, caused great differences in the development histories of centers on the outskirts. Therefore, we have set up a development typology for the centers on the outskirts by summarizing the planning history at the city level. Based on how well the center was able to incorporate itself into the larger metropolis since 1950, we have distinguished the following development models: the metropolized, the transcript, the rehabilitated, and the urban village model. This typology is extended to include new urban centers that formed during state socialism (between 1950 and 1990) and post-socialist capitalism (since 1990).

Section: The Metropolized Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Transcript Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: New Centers Under State Socialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contemporary Decentralized Development of a Centrally Planned Metropolis: The Case of Budapest

Losonczy

Orbán

2022

Self Cite

“…The Hungarian capital Budapest has 13 large housing estates (Figure 1) planned for more than 20 000 inhabitants realized during two 15-year mass housing programs between 1960 and 1990 (Losonczy et al, 2020). The first LHE to be built by panel technology -Kelenföld, is now one of the most developing residential areas of the Hungarian capital.…”

Section: Kelenföld Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Architectural and Urban Transformations of Large Housing Estate Related to Functional Diversification: Case of Kelenföld in Budapest

Antypenko

Journal of Architecture and Urbanism

2022

Self Cite

Large housing estates (LHEs) is a global product of modern planning and architecture based on the concept of the functional city. However, during the last decades, these inherited mass housing neighborhoods have been gradually transformed in their social and physical context. Much of this change is due to functional diversification of LHEs following rising consummation demands. The objective of the research is to create a general simple typology discovering this phenomenon and providing a method to make case study analysis and comparative studies. How to classify functional diversification and morphological transformations in LHEs in general? What are the functional and morphological values that were preserved from modern development period and what are the new characteristics of contemporary transformations? What are the special characteristics of the functional diversification in a post-socialist city? Kelenföld case study from Budapest is introduced to test the typology by using local documents and fieldwork methods in architecture: mapping, morphological analysis, and photo making. Kelenföld is one of the best located and the first LHE in Budapest realized with large panel technology in the 60’s, being today intensively developed and favored by its users.

“…The centrally planned economy, the need for mass housing construction, and the negation of the values of the past resulted in a completely different spatial distribution logic (Kiss, 2019). In Budapest, most of the new housing estates were built in the transition zone around the city centre or in the new outer zone attached to the city (Losonczy et al, 2020). The city became an enormous, polycentric patchwork with intensive, highdensity, city-within-a-city areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Borderlands of housing neighbourhoods as residual or liminal spaces: Comparative study of cases in Budapest

Bene

2022

Spatium

Self Cite

This paper aims to analyse and classify urban borderlands. The formation of urban boundaries is influenced by natural, infrastructural, property (social), and urban design principles. Based on the categorisation of urban residual space, the spatial configurations of three regular homogeneous residential areas (historical, socialist-modern, contemporary) in Budapest are presented by combining a quantitative and qualitative approach. The role and presence of their boundaries in the city are explored through map-based and SpaceSyntax analysis. In addition, their qualitative attributes - such as lost space, neglected space, liminal space, and border vacuums - are introduced based on the literature and fieldwork. The objective of this research is to draw attention to under-represented and under-managed urban situations, in order to better understand the impacts of borderlands on the use of space and their role in creating spatial segregation. Moreover, in post-socialist cities like Budapest, the analysis of these spaces is crucial for further complex and successful urban development.