Planning trajectories in post-socialist cities: patterns of divergence and change

Abstract

This article explores the new planning regimes and planning processes in post-socialist countries and their ability to influence the spatial transformation of cities. It views planning institutions as culturally embedded in the overall process of economic, social, and political transition, while recognizing the power of specific local imperatives and market pressures to shape their response. The research draws on empirical evidence in four countries and their capital cities to highlight the links between the transition to democracy, markets, and decentralized governance on the spatial transformation in post-socialist cities. The main argument is that the new planning institutions have different ability to direct these processes of change, depending on the legal framework, the availability of plans, and the institutionalization of the plan-implementation process. Despite the diverse mosaic of urban experiences in Prague, Riga, Belgrade, and Tirana, planning institutions are viewed as path dependent, influenced by a common socialist legacy. Further, changes in the exogenous environment – economic, social, and institutional – are perceived to be important sources of convergence, but tend to shape different planning responses and policy choices. The research explores these differences as well as the new patterns of spatial transformation in three principal domains: (1) spaces of production/consumption reflecting the economic transition; (2) differentiation in residential spaces associated with the social transition; and (3) new approaches to planning and service delivery resulting from the transition in governance. Central to the arguments in the article is that transition of this magnitude has created a complex urban world in which the patterns of divergence are going to become more explicit in the future, producing spatial and temporal differentiation among post-socialist cities.

Keywords:

• urban planning
• democratic governance
• post-socialist cities
• patterns of divergence

Acknowledgements

The article is based on a research paper presented at a CBEES seminar at Södertörns University, Stockholm, in May 2012 and its revised version at Halle Institute for Economic Research, Halle, Germany, in April 2013. Comments from seminar participants and reviewers were very helpful in refining the research approach and methodology.

Notes

1. Western European planning is not necessarily uniform. Newman and Thorney (1996) define four families of planning in Western Europe – British, Germanic, Napoleonic, and Scandinavian – based on their legal and administrative planning framework.

2. In Tirana, directly or indirectly the government through state enterprises remains the single biggest employer, while microenterprises account for 32% of GDP (World Bank 2007).

3. Shopping center space in London is 210 sq m per 1000 and in Paris 350 sq m per 1000 (JL Lasalle 2004).

4. Economic difficulties and social stress have resulted in negative population growth – over 15% for Riga and 3% for Belgrade and Prague (Economic Commission 2007).

5. Riga is compact, with half of the area taken by green spaces and 70% of the people and businesses concentrated in the eastern part of the city and its historical core. Newly found affluence has pushed the prices of older historic homes dramatically over the years, fuelled by better functioning mortgage markets and availability of international credits. At the peak of the cycle in 2007, apartment prices reached EUR 7000 per sq m in the old town, a level comparable with Stockholm, Copenhagen, and Oslo. Prices then tumbled by as much as 70–80% reaching its low point at the end of 2009. This is arguably the largest property crash that the world has ever seen (Tsenkova 2013).

6. The impact on huge brownfield sites would be substantial. Whereas today developers can spend years trying to change the master plan, these former industrial sites will now require merely standard zoning permits authorized in the standard way.

7. Riga has chosen a very open and democratic process to formulate its vision. A public campaign ‘I do Riga’ was launched in April 2004 including mail-out questionnaires to every household, street advertisements, business breakfasts, and open discussion forums with experts. Within 3 weeks, it generated more than 12,000 written opinions, excluding those of the experts. The second round of public consultation in December 2004 on the draft strategy was done through 8-week exhibition and thematic workshops which resulted in close to 5000 different submissions (Riga City 2005).

8. ALUIZNI is the national Agency for Legalization and Urbanization of Illegal Constructions and Settlements in Albania. First legalization permits were granted in February 2007 with follow-up registration after payment of duties equal to 1 US$/sq m. In total, there are 681 informal zones, out of which for 152 zones (23,000 hectares of land) the technical and legal documentation is ready, while for 281 the process is underway. ALUIZNI has recorded some 350,000 requests for legalization, out of which some 80,000 are multi-apartment dwellings and shops (Tsenkova, Potsou, and Badina 2009).

9. Albania had the most extreme form of State-controlled communist rule, while Serbia had a more relaxed political and economic regime with decentralized autonomous public enterprises.