City of Budapest

The city and its environment

Budapest is the ‘grand capital’; its future is expected to be in the tertiary sector. After the relative wealth of Hungarian ‘Goulash-Communism’, the conversion to a market-oriented society brought a severe decline in industrial production, with an approximately 40% (345,000) job loss for the less educated work force. At the same time, new jobs started to develop as a result of the commercial and service orientation of the city (64,000), along with new wealth for younger, well-educated people. There is a noticeable threat of social polarisation along educational, age, and income strata, resulting in deepened regional segregation. The population decline since the mid ‘80s has been the result of a negative birth rate and of parts of the middle classes leaving the inner city for the countryside where private housing developments are emerging, recently supplemented by new commercial ‘edge cities’. ‘Western-type’ urban development started well over a decade ago.

Housing situation and large housing estates

Housing and urban development policy faces four major problems. The rehabilitation of the huge, 19th century tenement block quarters of the inner city is imperative to preserve their value and potential after decades of neglect and to prevent a ‘poverty belt’ around Pest's downtown area. The lower-density, old ‘craftsperson areas’ are in need of improved infrastructure and building investment in order to regain their potential as modern, multi-functional quarters. Old industrial areas need cleansing and a new definition, either as future ‘inner suburbs’ or modern work areas. Since many of the post-war, large housing estates have also reached a stage of technical obsolescence, they also are in need of major repairs. Though parallel activities are necessary, the city has made the rehabilitation of the pre-war stocks and the former industrial areas a priority.

The privatisation of housing leads towards individual ownership, with a portion of ‘quasi-private’ flats owned by the Council as ‘social housing’. Since the liberalisation of the housing market began earlier than in other central and eastern European countries, about a decade ago the large estates also began to show signs of segregation processes, resulting in differentiating between favoured (mostly inner city) and unpopular (very large, monotonous) estates. The main denominators for social and economic acceptance seem to be: location in the city; social composition; image; average flat sizes.

Problems and areas requiring action

• technical infrastructure of the estates (water, sewage, streets)
• demand for jobs that are close to housing and appropriate for the local population (qualification!), since former links to industry have disappeared
• general decrease in the market value of many large estates (taking inflation into account), more pronounced in disadvantaged estates and accelerating the segregation process
• tendency for ‘atomised’ behaviour in privatised houses which must be overcome by integrative management support
• prevention of social disintegration in some (south-eastern) large housing estates as a result of ‘poverty migration’ from attractive, inner city rehabilitation areas
• identification and management of affordable and long-term financing to enable owners to maintain their buildings in a co-ordinated manner

Actors and activities

The political structure of the town, composed of 23 rather independent and often competing districts under the umbrella of a uniting city government, has encouraged local democracy but also limited actions that are in the interest of the city as a whole. Prospective development plans for the large, prefabricated estates are prepared by the districts. Flat owners are building associations or co- operative management structures who form the basis for the management of large buildings and political and administrative communication. The economic situation of most owners is such that it prevents the utilisation of available funds (supported international loans) as co-financing, and the refinancing of loans seems impossible.

‘Ujpest’ Estate

Ujpest, forming a major part of the IVth district near the inner city, was built in stages between 1969-1972 and 1975-1986. During the earlier periods, the district suffered from a lack of public transportation links, but later an underground connection to the city was established. Formerly a great asset, the area’s proximity to jobs in industrial areas and the Danube harbour has lost its importance since many of these no longer exist. In the Budapest housing market, the estate is rated mid-level in terms of the market value of its flats, but lower if the socially problematic households are counted.

Physical and ecological situation

• rapidly ageing buildings without proper maintenance; outside common areas frequently neglected; landscaping and greenery in the sections built during the 1980s not yet sufficiently matured
• frequently leaking water and sewage pipes, with unknown consequences for the groundwater
• increasing car ownership; lack of space for parking and for working on cars in an environmentally safe way; heavy burden on available space for running and parking cars
• unsatisfactory garbage collection; air- and sight-polluting collection points

Problems

• high-density land use, frequently with very tall buildings and – simultaneously – large areas of unused, free space; difficult to determine the ‘boundaries of responsibility’ between the owners and the municipality
• maintenance deficits, especially in the ‘common’ parts of buildings (heating, all types of piping); flat roofs in need of insulation and repair; corrugating wall joints
• lack of, or unsatisfactory, heat insulation; consumption metering and regulation only for buildings, not for individual flats
• loss of market value of the dwellings, favouring the influx of poorer groups and possibly leading to a downward spiral
• increasing service and consumption costs; rising rents and rate arrears
• communication difficulties: frequently, the district has to act as the municipality and as ‘private owner’ of non-privatised parts of condominiums

Strategies

• development plan for careful improvement, in accordance with the financial possibilities prepared as a model project in 1995 but not yet realised
• central commercial amenities, with appropriate consideration of free space as part of the planning process

Source: EA.UE: A future for large housing estates, Berlin 1998

Bratislava Bucharest Budapest Katowice Kaunas Klaipeda Ljubljana Lublin Prague Riga Sofia Tallinn Tartu Warsaw