EU R O C I T I E S i s t h e n e t wo r k o f m a j o r Eu ro p e a n cities. Fou n d e d i n 1 9 8 6, t he net wor k b r i ng s tog et her th e l o c a l g ove r n m e n t s o f ove r 1 3 0 l a rg e c i t i e s in s o m e 3 4 Eu ro p e a n c o u n t r i e s. EU R O C I T I E S re p re s e n t s t h e i n te re s t s o f i t s m embers an d e n g a g e s i n d i a l o g u e w i t h th e Eu ro p e a n i n s t i t u t i o n s ac ro s s a w i d e r a n g e o f p o l i c y a re a s af fe c t i n g c i t i e s. The s e i n c l u d e : ec o n o m i c d e ve l o p m e n t , th e e nv i ro n m e n t , tran s po r t a n d mob i l i t y, so c i a l a f f a i r s, cu l t u re, th e i n fo r m a t i o n an d k n ow l e d g e s o c i e t y, an d s e r v i c e s o f g e n e r a l i n te re s t .
www.eurocities.eu
This brochure was produced in November 2008
Demographic Change & Housing in European Cities August 2008 Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology Permosertrass 15 04318 Leipzig, Germany http://www.ufz.de PD Dr. Sigrun Kabisch Dr. Annett Steinführer Dr. Annegret Haase Dr. Katrin Großmann Dipl.-Geogr. Andreas Peter Dipl.-Geogr. Andreas Maas
sigrun.kabisch@ufz.de
4 5 8 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
4.3_Profiles of five cities_Łódź
10
4.2_Profiles of five cities_Brno
9
4.1_Profiles of five cities_Leipzig
7
3_Methodological approach
3
2_Demographic change and resulting housing demand – quantitative and qualitative investigations
2
0_preface
1
1_Ongoing demographic change – new trends and challenges 6 11 15 25 39 40 41 42
Contents
5_Comparisons, conclusions and recommendations
83
7.2_Addendum_Different definitions of “household�
7.3_Addendum_Tables
6.2_Websites
62 63 64 65 66 67 68
6.1_References
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
4.5_Profiles of five cities_Liverpool
61
7.1_Addendum_Methodological remarks
43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
4.4_Profiles of five cities_Bologna 51 69 77
70 71 72 73 74 75 76
84 85
87
86
88
80
78 79 81 82
89 90 91 92 93 94
6
7
0_Preface This report provides a detailed examination of the fundamental changes occurring in urban demographics and their interconnection with housing. In Chapter 1, the new demographic trends and challenges are elaborated. Chapter 2 explains their impact on the housing sector, and the need for both quantitative and qualitative research. This chapter also highlights crossEuropean processes and specific local trends, taking information from the five major European cities of Leipzig, Brno, Łódź, Bologna and Liverpool. These cities are all members of the EUROCITIES network. The analyses in this report are based on a set of indicators which is introduced in Chapter 3, together with the methodological approach. Questions of data availability and comparability are also considered. Chapter 4 looks in more detail at the five cities in terms of demographics and housing. The research findings are supplemented by information on local municipal projects that are designed to deal with the challenges for housing that have been caused by demographic change. A comparative summary, conclusions and recommendations are given in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 provides a comprehensive list of references, which include European studies as well as reports from the individual cities under investigation. Finally, in Chapter 7, the Addendum discusses certain aspects of the methodology. Throughout the report, a number of graphs, tables and photos are included, as well as information boxes (“info-boxes”), highlighting specific characteristics or interesting local projects.
1_Ongoing demographic change new trends and challenges European cities face great challenges in terms of demographic change and its consequences. Demographic changes are either already affecting European cities, or are likely to affect them in the near future, in terms of the urban infrastructure, the social composition of the population, and the demand for services and amenities. Demographic change also needs to be considered in terms of its impact on housing: in particular, to ensure appropriate housing supply and adequate housing conditions for a variety of different social groups. To tackle this task, cities need to have a sound knowledge of the ongoing demographic changes in their urban populations and the relevance for housing and the housing market. The fundamental characteristics of demography are universal: fertility, mortality and migration. In very general terms, the population of a city can either increase or decrease and can tend to rejuvenate or to age. While population growth was for a long time a major driver for urbanisation, many European cities now face population decline (‘shrinkage’). If fertility rates are lower than mortality rates and migration does not fill the gap, shrinkage will occur. Only cities with a positive net migration balance and a strong economic base are currently facing ongoing population growth. In terms of fertility, birth rates have been declining across Europe for decades. In many European countries, fertility is currently well below the so-called replacement level (about 2.1 children per female). In some European countries, fertility is showing historically low values. This phenomenon, which is found in Eastern and Southern Europe in particular, is referred to by demographers as “lowest-low fertility” (Kohler et al. 2002). Recent analyses by the European Commission (2006) indicate a present Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of 1.5 children per woman for the EU-25. Only a limited increase to 1.6 children per woman is projected for these countries by 2030. Some demographers express doubt even about this slight increase, and expect the very low fertility rate to continue. In terms of life-expectancy, a decrease in the mortality rate in Europe, caused by better living conditions and improved health services, is predicted to raise life expectancy by at least five years from the current level, by 2050. Current life expectancy for European men is 75.7 years now and is projected to rise to 80.5 years by 2050; the figures for women are 80.4 years currently, rising to 85.6 by 2050 (EC 2006). While the trends in absolute population numbers vary throughout Europe, a further significant demographic development in European cities is ageing. Its main causes are declining fertility rates and increased life expectancy. Ageing is the most outstanding feature of Europe’s demography: it affects all European regions and most of its major cities (EUROCITIES 2007, NiDi 2008). The current median age in Europe is 37.7 years, compared to a global median age of 26.4 years (CoE 2005, 13).
8 9
Facing both population decline and ageing, urban decision-makers need new strategies in urban planning, such as innovative housing market instruments, and a new awareness of both growth and shrinkage as acceptable urban development pathways. To mention just a few of the main challenges: population decrease causes contradictory housing market conditions, such as lower prices on the one hand, and vacant housing (over-supply) and decay on the other. Ageing often creates an imbalance between available housing supply and the actual housing and services required in residential areas. Furthermore, older people do not form a homogeneous group: there is a variety of different life styles, social strata, states of health etc. among them. Within this picture, the new phenomenon of rising numbers of inhabitants aged 80+ has to be considered. ‘Ageing in place’ (Gober 1990, 243), i.e. a decreasing residential mobility in the course of life, but also selective mobility, can lead to particular demographic landscapes in cities. In addition, decreasing population numbers, and a new imbalance in age structures, leads to reduced population densities in terms of housing usage, and also reduced and changed demand for services. Yet, in spite of this, urban amenities and infrastructure still need to be maintained. This causes rising costs and rising charges, which also affect how satisfied people are with their housing. These trends are accompanied by a further socio-demographic process that must be mentioned in the context of housing: the rising number of households, and their changing structure, despite the fact that in many places the population is shrinking. The increase in the number of households together with changing household compositions needs intensive consideration in both quantitative and qualitative terms, and is discussed in more detail below.
2_Demographic change and resulting housing demand quantitative and qualitative investigations In order to achieve a better insight into the picture at local level, and to evaluate the consequences of the interrelated demographic processes mentioned in the previous chapter, it is necessary to specify the indicators and drivers within the field of housing. In our view, because it is households rather than individuals that are the main actors on housing markets, a household perspective is indispensable. It is households that decide where to live, in what conditions, and whether to stay or to leave a certain location. Our research demonstrates that the far-reaching changes in household structures are an important, and so far under-researched, dimension of urban housing (Buzar et al. 2007b). Of particular importance is the increase in smaller, less stable households, and in one-person households of both younger and older people. For this report, we define a household as a living arrangement which can consist either of one person living alone, or of several people living together and sharing a significant proportion of their living costs. This definition, which is based on the official German definition of a household, serves as a basis for our comparisons, even though some European countries use different definitions of a household (Housing Statistics in the EU 2004, 97-100 and Addendum in Chapter 7). In many European regions, we have been observing a diversification of household types and the growing importance of non-traditional living arrangements: for example, one-person households, childless couples, one-parent households, patchwork families, and flat sharing. The main trends are, firstly, significantly smaller household sizes, and secondly, less stable household arrangements, as individuals shift from one living arrangement to another several times during the course of their lives (for an overview: Buzar et al. 2005). These changes, which demographers refer to as the “Second Demographic Transition� (van de Kaa 1987 and 2004), need to be considered because of their importance both for housing markets and for general urban development (Ogden, Hall 2004). Changing household structures should be seen in the light of new emerging lifestyles and also women’s participation in the workforce: these new ways of life help to generate new housing aspirations e. g. the possibility of avoiding suburban life and also of rediscovering the advantages of inner-city housing. The formation of new household types overlaps with ageing. The desire of older people to continue to live in their own dwelling (and not in a residential care home) means that dwellings need to be in good physical condition with the right facilities and without barriers to living at home e. g. with step-free access, non-slip treads, and suitable bath equipment. Self-determined living may be achieved either by living alone or sharing a dwelling. A decisive point for housing policies is that older inhabitants, who no longer take part in the labour market, spend more time at home: their housing and service needs are therefore very different from those of the population of working age.
10 11
An additional observation is that cities, and especially inner cities, lead the way in changing household compositions. The share of one-person households is highest in the larger cities, and it is even higher in the inner cities. Other non-traditional household types, such as cohabitation, samesex unions and flat sharing, are also spreading faster in the cities than elsewhere. This diversification of living and housing arrangements transforms the affected neighbourhoods (Buzar et al. 2007b, Steinf端hrer, Haase 2008). In line with these changes, urban experts have recently started referring to reurbanisation again, in discussing the relationships between demographic, residential and urban changes, and also the new attractiveness of the inner cities across Europe (Haase, A. et al. 2005 and 2006). In this report, our aim is to analyse the present demographic situation in five European cities and point out the challenges as well as the concrete tasks for housing. In contrast with the EUROCITIES Demographic Change Survey 2007 (EUROCITIES 2007), this report focuses in particular on city-specific demographic changes and their impact on local housing markets.
3_Methodological approach In this report, we include the following cities as case studies:
1_ Leipzig (Germany)
2_ Brno (Czech Republic)
3_ Łódź (Poland)
4_ Bologna (Italy)
5_ Liverpool (U.K.)
We decided to analyse large, so-called ‘second-order’ cities (i.e. no capital cities), in five European countries. This decision was taken because of the importance of these ‘secondorder’ cities in terms of the future economic and social development of urban Europe. Furthermore, these cities often receive insufficient attention on the political and scientific agendas, in comparison with the capital cities. In terms of their geographical coverage, the cities are located in Central Europe (Leipzig), East Central Europe (Łódź and Brno), Western Europe (Liverpool) and Southern Europe (Bologna). Three of the cities have been experiencing the challenges of transition from state socialism to a market-orientated political and economic system (Leipzig, Brno and Łódź). But despite their specific contexts, all five cities face the consequences of demographic change in general, and its impact on the field of housing in particular. Being aware of the risks, limitations and problems of cross-national comparisons, it has been essential to use a common set of key indicators for the analyses. They describe the most important factors, and provide the basis for comprehensive interpretation and cross-local conclusions. Three conditions need to be fulfilled in selecting such indicators. Firstly, the set of indicators should be flexible enough to respond to the various needs of stakeholders, and of results-based management strategies, at different levels of urban local government. Secondly, the indicators need to be appropriate for evaluating the performance, thresholds and trade-offs of any municipal policies. Thirdly, they should not only describe the current situation, but should also be able to integrate past and future changing dynamics (Haase, D. et al. 2008). Given this background, a set of key indicators was selected, as shown in the following table, to describe local demography and housing as well as their interdependencies (Fig. 3.1).
12 13
Figure 3.1_Key indicator set for demographic change and its impact on housing Indicators of total population development
> Population development in a long-term perspective (2nd half of the 20th century)
> Population development in a short-term perspective (2000-2006/2007)
> Population projections (until 2020/2030)
Indicators of natural population development and migration
> Fertility and mortality
> In- and out-migration (= local, regional and national scales)
> Immigration and emigration (= international scale)
> Population density
> Importance of ethnic minorities/foreign population
Ageing indicators
> Share of population aged: 0-14, 15-64, 65+
> Number of persons aged: 65-79, 80+, total 65+
> Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64; = ratio of children to 100 persons of working age)
> Age dependency rate (65+/15-64; = ratio of older people to 100 persons of working age)
> Index of ageing (65+/0-14; = ratio of older people to 100 children)
> Life expectancy at birth
> Average age
Household indicators > Total resident population
> Total number of households
> Total number of one-person households
> Share of one-person households
> Average household size
Housing indicators
> Total housing stock
> Housing vacancy
> Living space per inhabitant in m²
> Age and tenure structure of the housing stock
These key indicators are complemented by data and empirical findings from other sources, such as the Urban Audit, local questionnaire surveys, and interviews where available. We have also used information gathered by cross-national investigations to illustrate specific issues, while also being aware of the methodological challenges related to crossnational and cross-local investigations (Kabisch 2005, SteinfĂźhrer et al. 2008).
Some general methodological points need to be stressed:
• In many cases, the available population, household and housing market data are based on census updates; however, in the past, censuses in Europe were carried out at different times. In addition, recent census data do not exist for Germany.
• Changes occurring outside the administrative boundaries of each city have been as far as possible included, most importantly in the suburban zones; however, respective information is often either lacking or not comparable. Moreover, the data on urban-rural migration does not differentiate between urban-suburban migration and real urban-rural migration. Thus, suburbanisation trends are not always detectable from the statistics used.
• Data concerning migration on the local, regional and national scales (i.e. in- and out-migration) as well as on the international scale (i.e. immigration and emigration) have to be interpreted with caution due to incomplete representation within official statistics. Those persons who do not register as in or out-migrants are not in the statistics. This is true in most European countries, but most strikingly in Eastern Europe and in particular in Poland, where labour-related emigration increased rapidly after 2004 when the country became a full member of the European Union.
• The existence of different definitions and data categorisations hampers the comparison between cities. This relates in particular to some key indicators as follows:
- household: see Addendum;
- age groups: there is inappropriate differentiation, and also too few age bands or varying age bands;
- migration: there is not always a clear differentiation between in-/out-migration on the local, regional and national scale, and immigration/emigration on the international scale;
- rates of housing vacancy: there are different calculation bases and different definitions of vacant dwellings.
• For cross-European comparisons, the Urban Audit is often used, but the data sources for the Urban Audit are not usually provided. Thus it remains unclear to what extent the data are really comparable.
• Since statistics sometimes hide more than they reveal, there is a strong need for mixed-method approaches. Quantitative methods have to be combined with qualitative approaches to achieve a deeper understanding of the ongoing processes.
• To obtain more insights into the dynamics of demographic change and its consequences, repeated investigations and particularly long-term studies are indispensable.
The findings presented in this report are, in part, based on the EU FP5 research project Re Urban Mobil (www.re-urban.com; duration 2002–2005). We also used information and research results from the ongoing research initiative “Socio-spatial consequences of demographic change for East Central European cities” (www.condense-project.org, duration: 2006-2009, funded by the German Volkswagen foundation). Further information and data was collected in consultation with the municipalities and from their websites. It has to be stressed that the research on each city was embedded in different projects. Therefore, the volume and depth of knowledge about each of the five cities differ.
14 15
A final source for evaluating our research approach and findings was the international conference “Socio-demographic change of European cities and its spatial consequences” which was held in April 2008 in Leipzig. Participants from 14 European countries took part in this conference (Großmann et al. 2008). Table 3.1 provides an initial overview of selected demographic and housing features of the five studied cities for 2006. Table 3.1_General features of the investigated cities, 2006 (short version)*
Leipzig
Brno
Łódź
Bologna
Liverpool
POPULATION Total population
506,600 (31/12)
366,384 (01/07)
760,251 (31/12)
373,026 (31/12)
436,100 (30/06)
43.9
41.8
42.7
47.7
not available
Average age in years Average household size
1.7
not available
2.20
1.9
not available
298,700
not available
not available
193,555
not available
Share of one-person households
52.2
not available
22.6
not available
not available
Life expectancy in years
79.25
73.95
72.25
not available
not available
Total number of households
HOUSING Dwellings Vacancy rate (share of empty dwellings)
315,000
165,366
332,692
not available
209,344
12.7
not available
not available
not available
7.1
* The enlarged table for 2006 with additional indicators and the table for 2001 with the same features for comparison (including all references) are provided in the Addendum (i.e. Chapter 7).
Leipzi
4_Profiles of five cities 4.1_Leipzig
Leipzig is a second-order city in eastern Germany, south-west of Berlin. It has some 500,000 inhabitants, and an
area of nearly 300 km². This is where, in October 1989, the “Peaceful Revolution” (Friedliche Revolution) started,
which initiated the fall of the Berlin Wall. For several weeks, tens of thousands of people demonstrated in the streets of Leipzig city centre, demanding an end to state socialism. In October 1990, German reunification took place.
In terms of its economy, Leipzig is a historical centre of commerce, and the Leipzig Fair is known
as the “mother of all trade fairs”. In recent years, the city has become an important centre for the vehicle and automotive components industry (e.g. Porsche since 2002, BMW since 2005). It has also developed to an international logistics node (it has been the European hub for DHL since 2007). Leipzig also has a number of higher education and research institutes, and
currently attracts some 37,000 students. Its university is the second oldest in Germany, founded in 1409. The city has a broad cultural heritage and hosts a number of festivals (e.g. Gewandhaus Orchestra and the Bach or Wave Gothic Festival). The urban appearance of Leipzig is strongly characterised by a Gründerzeit architectural heritage of more than 12,000 residential buildings containing 110,000 dwellings (35% of the total housing stock). These ensembles date from between 1870 and 1914: a period of economic prosperity known as the Gründerzeit. Demographic development To understand the recent demographic trends in Leipzig and their consequences for the housing market, it is necessary to consider three phases in the city’s recent history: first, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989; second, between 1990 and 2000; and third, 2001 to the present. The Fig. 4.1.1 below gives an initial impression of the population trends in Leipzig since 1933. Figure 4.1.1_Leipzig – population development 1933–2007 800,000
713,500
Inhabitants
700,000
702,000 584,500 617,500 589,500 584,000 562,500
600,000 500,000
511,000
471,500
437,000
493,000 506,500 510,500
400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 1933
1939
1945
1950
1960
1970
Source: Stadt Leipzig 2007a, 2008 (*after incorporation of suburban locations)
1980
1990
1995
1998 2000* 2006
2007
16 17
Long-term shrinkage process in the second part of the 20th century Before World War II, Leipzig was one of the five largest cities in Germany, with more than 700,000 inhabitants. But as a result of World War II, the population decreased by more than 100,000 people. After 1945, with the division of Germany and Europe, Leipzig lost most of its former national and international economic importance. In the 1950s particularly, mostly young, well-trained people migrated to Western Germany. After 1961 and the construction of the Berlin Wall, in-migration and out-migration were almost equal. Yet, between 1951 and 1989, Leipzig lost nearly 58,000 inhabitants through out-migration (32,800 people in 1989 and 1990 alone), and more than 48,000 through the natural decline in population (more deaths than births). The 1990s were characterised by a further dramatic loss of population: between 1990 and 1998, the population declined by almost 100,000 people. There were three main reasons: firstly, the radical fall in the birth rate after the reunification of Germany; secondly, the high out-migration to western Germany, due to the poor economic situation in eastern Germany, and, thirdly, suburbanisation (Fig. 4.1.2).
-1,676
315 -1,998
1999
2000
-7,556
-1,843
1992
-9,983
-2,551
-3,025 -7,167
-3,580
-3,726
-6,005
-2,484
-11,228
-13,000 1991
-3,919
-2,751
-3,793
-8,000
-4,143
-3,000 -3,745
Inhabitants
2,000
1,012
Figure 4.1.2_Leipzig – natural population development and migration balance 1991–2000
1993 1994 1995 1997 1998 1996 natural population development migration balance
Source: Stadt Leipzig 2001a
In the first half of the 1990s, 20,000 more people died than were born. In 1995, eastern Germany as a whole showed a total fertility rate of 0.77 children per woman, which represented the world’s lowest value (Statistisches Bundesamt 2003). After the mid-1990s, the fertility rate rose in eastern Germany, and also in Leipzig itself; by 2000, the number of live births per year in the city had increased to 7.3 per 1,000 inhabitants. But by that time, a massive suburbanisation process had begun. From 1996 to 1998 almost 30,000 people left the city of Leipzig for the surrounding suburbia (Stadt Leipzig 2001a).
Leipzi
In the 1990s, the ethnic composition of the city’s population saw some decisive changes. In 1989, at the fall of the Berlin Wall, almost 20,000 foreign
nationals (in the German understanding: Ausländer, “foreigners”) lived in the city,
mainly from developing countries such as Vietnam, Mozambique and Angola. However, most of these foreigners had to leave Germany after reunification; and
in 1990, there were only 9,000 living in the city. But by the end of the 1990s, the number of foreign nationals had risen again, to nearly 27,000 (5% of the entire population): mainly from Vietnam, Ukraine, Russia, Poland and Iraq. In addition, 10,000 ethnic Germans (Spätaussiedler) moved into the city from Eastern Europe (Stadt Leipzig 1991a, 2007b). Due to the drop in the birth rate, as well as a selective out-migration (especially of younger people), ageing has gained a special dynamic in Leipzig. Since 1990, the share of children under 15 years old has decreased from
some 17% of the population, to a current level of less than 10%. In the same period, the proportion of people aged 65+ increased from 16% to nearly 22%. In terms of the ageing index, in 1990 there were 91 people aged 65+ per 100 children, but by 2006 this had already increased to 220 people aged 65+ per 100 children. In line with these changes, the average age of the population increased from 40 years old to almost 44 years old (Table 4.1.1). Table 4.1.1_Leipzig – demographic indicators of ageing 1990-2006
1990
1995
2000
2006
Share of total population aged: 0-14
17.0
13.8
11.2
9.9
15-65
67.5
69.8
70.6
68.3
65+
15.5
16.4
18.2
21.8
Number of persons aged: 65-79
57,600
55,500
68,300
85,200
80+
21,900
21,500
21,300
25,100
Total 65+
79,500
77,000
89,600
110,300
Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64)
25.2
19.8
15.9
14.6
Age dependency rate (65+/15-64)
23.0
23.5
25.7
31.9
Index of ageing (65+/0-14)
91.2
118.8
162.5
220.2
Average age
40.0
41.8
43.8
43.9
Sources: Stadt Leipzig 1991a, 1996a, 2001a, 2007a; Statistisches Landesamt des Freistaates Sachsen 2007
18 19
New direction of population development after 2001 – stabilisation and growth Since the mid-1990s, the birth rate in Leipzig has been increasing, and a negative migration balance has gradually turned into a positive one (Fig. 4.1.3). The city of Leipzig is growing mainly due to an influx of people from other East German regions and from the areas surrounding the city (Herfert 2007). The universities and other higher education institutions are a major factor attracting in-migrants. Between 2000/01 and 2006/07, the number of students increased from 31,000 to 37,000. As noted above, this trend of positive net migration has slowed down the ageing process, and the average age has stabilised at 44 years old (Table 4.1.1). Figure 4.1.3_Leipzig – natural population development and migration balance 2001–2006
2003
4,939
1.843
4.292
3.330
2002
natural population development
2004*
-1,012
2001
-1.218
-3.000
-912
-1.000
-1.547
1.000
-1.584
1.453
3.000
-1.843
Inhabitants
5.000
5.353
7.000
2005
2006
migration balance
Source: Stadt Leipzig 2007a, *data cleansing in the course of elections
The future – moderate population growth and ongoing ageing According to demographic projections, there will be moderate population growth until 2020. Different forecasts suggest the population will increase to some 530,000 inhabitants (+5% in comparison with 2006). But the demographic changes in the areas surrounding Leipzig and in other regions (mainly ageing and population shrinkage), will lead to a decrease in the potential for in-migration. Thus in the long-term, it is very unlikely that in-migration will be able to compensate the deficit of births in Leipzig. In the medium-term, the population of Leipzig will certainly decrease again. Yet, the number of older people (80+) will grow massively: according to estimations, the number of people aged 80+ will increase from 25,000 in 2006 to 44,000 in 2020 (which represents 8% of the total population; Stadt Leipzig 2003b).
Leipzi
Housing market – from shortage to vacancy In contrast with the other four cities under investigation, the share of rental housing is extraordinarily high in Leipzig (about 86% of the entire housing stock; Stadt Leipzig 2007e, 34). This specific feature did not even change in the course of the post-socialist transition, as it did, for example, in Brno or in Łódź.
Until the early 1990s, the housing market in Leipzig was characterised by an extreme lack of
housing and by poor housing conditions, mainly with respect to the pre-1945 housing stock.
Until the 1990s, many dwellings from the Gründerzeit period had no bathroom and no separate toilet. The residential environment was generally in a very poor state due to the prevalence of coal fired heating. Although some 40,000 new dwellings had been built between 1970 and 1990 (Table 4.1.2), the volume of available housing was insufficient to meet the prevailing housing shortage. Increasing numbers of dwellings were required, due to the rising number of households, the increasing demand for comfort, the reduction in the size of households, and the dilapidated state of the old housing stock. At the end of the 1980s, some 25,000 to 30,000 dwellings were uninhabitable. Table 4.1.2_Leipzig – indicators of the housing market 1971-2006
1971*
1981*
1990
1995*
1998
2000
2006
Total resident population
580,700
562,300
530,000
471,400
437,000
493,200
506,600
Total number of dwellings
216,600
240,600
258,000
268,200
282,200
315,700
315,000
Total number of households
244,500
237,300
248,500
231,700
227,900
264,100
298,700
78,400
74,500
97,800
86,200
88,500
112,200
156,000
32.1
31.4
39.4
37.2
38.9
42.5
52.2
2.7
2.3
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.6
23.1
27.3
31.8
36.7
41.4
41.7
41.2
Total number of one-person households Share of one-person house-holds (%) Average household size Living space per inhabitant in m²
Sources: Stadt Leipzig 1991a, 1996a, 2007a; *housing market data from census
20 21
This situation changed significantly after 1990. Supported by massive state-aid incentives, tens of thousands of old buildings were renovated and new dwellings were built. In 2000, 14% of all dwellings in Leipzig (i.e. 43,000 dwellings) were less than 10 years old. At the same time, around 75% of the old housing stock had been renovated. However, as the size of the population and, more importantly, the number of households decreased between 1995 and 1998 (Table 4.1.2), a new gap between supply and demand arose. This resulted in large housing vacancies (Kabisch 2005). In 2000, the number of unoccupied dwellings was estimated at about 60,000 (20% of the entire housing stock; Table 4.1.3). The incidence of vacant properties was uneven across the city and across housing market segments. Increasingly, those parts of the city with buildings of only a basic structure and in a poor location, especially on main roads, were affected by vacancy rates of up to 50% (Stadt Leipzig 2001c). Since 2001, the number of households has risen with the increase in population. The significant increase in one-person households (Table 4.1.2 above) has partly been caused by the growing number of young people in Leipzig (mainly students and young professionals). In terms of the housing market, it is worth noting that not all of them actually live alone: among the younger age groups, flat sharing with several others is very common (Steinführer, Haase 2008). The statistics show that by 2006, there were some 65,000 one-person households in the under-35 age group, compared with only 35,000 in the year 2000. In contrast with the increasing number of households, the number of dwellings declined between 2002 and 2006, due to the demolition of vacant buildings (Table 4.1.3). This demolition work is part of the statefunded programme “Urban restructuring East” (Stadtumbau Ost), implemented from 2002 to 2009. Table 4.1.3_Leipzig – indicators of the housing market and vacancies by period of construction Dwellings, by period
Total number
of construction
of dwellings
Vacancy by 31/12/2002*
Vacancy by 31/12/2006*
31/12/2002
31/12/2006
Total
Share
Total
Share
Before 1918
111,958
110,296
27,000
24%
17,000
15%
1919-1948
58,042
56,876
11,000
19%
10,000
18%
1949-1990
100,228
96,804
15,000
15%
11,500
12%
After 1990
46,535
50,997
2,000
4%
1,500
3%
Total
316,763
314,973
55,000
17%
40,000
13%
Source: Stadt Leipzig 2007c; * all these numbers are estimations
differentiation has increased. Areas characterised by population growth and rejuvenation are mainly situated in the inner city. Shrinking and ageing areas are located in the outskirts and in former working-class neighbourhoods.
Leipzi
As a result also of the high residential mobility in the city in the 1990s, socio-spatial
Overall, the housing market of Leipzig is characterized by high levels of vacancies, moderate rents and a relatively wide choice of housing standards and locations. In contrast with Liverpool, for example, the general standard of housing in Leipzig is relatively high. Therefore, it is no surprise that in the EU Urban Audit Perception Survey, Leipzig ranks first in terms of the response to the question: ‘Is it easy to find good housing at a reasonable price?’ The survey also found that 90% of the respondents were satisfied with living in Leipzig (EC 2007). In the following sections we will look in more detail at some of the key consequences of demographic change on housing in Leipzig. The focus is, firstly, on housing for older people, and, secondly, on large housing estates. Housing and quality of life for older people in housing surplus conditions: new challenges Older people in Leipzig represent an important target group for large housing enterprises and for many private landlords. It is in their interest to provide older people with conditions that guarantee a long tenancy, self-determination and high quality of life in their homes. Housing providers increasingly recognise their social responsibility and recently adjusted their services to reflect this e. g. by organising care and support, establishing concierge services, or distributing specific information for older people. Attracting and retaining older people as a sought-after residential group, in order to reduce housing vacancies, has become a major and sometimes controversial strategy (see info-box). A housing market with surplus supply, and with a wide range of housing types, strengthens the position of consumers, including older people. They have a better chance of fulfilling their housing needs than in a housing shortage. But the advantages of a housing surplus, as described above, only represent one side of the coin. Largescale vacant housing also brings disadvantages. For older people, these disadvantages are connected with significant changes in their daily life: long-term neighbours leave the area, social networks thin out, and vacant buildings deteriorate or become subject to vandalism. The high mobility of the younger generation reduces intra-generational contacts, with fewer opportunities for mutual support or to exchange experiences. The out-
migration of relatives and friends leads to the erosion of neighbourhood relationships. Family-based support loses its importance because of the growing number of childless older people. In addition, many residents are forced to leave their dwellings against their will, because the building they live in is planned for demolition. Consequently, they lose their familiar surroundings, have to look for an appropriate alternative and must then accustom themselves to new surroundings.
22 23
Info-box: Advertising campaign “Leipzig – against deprivation in old age” (Leipzig - Gegen Mangel im Alter) This campaign was organised by the municipal housing enterprise LWB in 2007. It focused on the specific housing demands of older people and the diverse and mainly well-restored housing stock in Leipzig. Older people living in several West German regions were invited to visit Leipzig, to check the living and housing conditions, with cheap bus travel, information events and apartment viewings. The advertising campaign highlighted the variety of existing dwellings available, the attractive financial packages, the relevant housing services and the wide range of medical care and cultural amenities.
www.lwb.de, last access 14/08/2008
Therefore, new forms of communication are indispensable, together with community networks offering reliable assistance. Self-help for older people is increasingly important in shrinking and ageing cities. In order to support this self-help, it is necessary to strengthen the opportunities for mobility, self-responsibility and activity for older residents. Nevertheless, the integration of young people is important too. There is a need for more tolerance and respect for each other’s lifestyles between the generations. In some neighbourhoods of Leipzig, and depending on the volume of housing vacancies, modernisation and renovation is no longer subsidised. There is either no public funding, or public funding is restricted, so there is nothing to prevent a decline in the quality of life in these areas. Consequently, the municipality and the housing organisations often decide to demolish housing blocks, and sometimes entire neighbourhoods. For parts of Leipzig, there is a new phenomenon: “life-limited neighbourhoods”, which are a characteristic of dramatically shrinking cities (Peter 2006, Kabisch, Peter 2008). A decisive feature of such neighbourhoods is the planning decision to give up this area for residential or commercial use in the next years. Remaining tenants are typically waiting to be re-housed because of the planned demolition of their residential building. Noticeably, many of them tend to be older people aged 65+, and or very old people aged 80+. Often they have been living in the neighbourhood for decades and have strong sentiments towards their residential environment. It is a major challenge for housing organisations and other local decisionmakers to find acceptable alternative living conditions for these people. This described process can therefore take several months or even years, depending on the size of the area and the complexity of the decision-making process. This urban development challenge applies in particular to the large housing estates on the fringes of Leipzig.
While in 1990 about 20% of the entire population of Leipzig were living in large housing estates, this proportion had decreased to about 10% by 2005. Nevertheless, today about 50,000 people live in this type of residential area. The most important is Grünau, located on the western edge of Leipzig. This neighbourhood was built between 1976 and 1989 for about 85,000 inhabitants, which was 17% of the whole population of Leipzig at that time. The housing stock was very homogeneous and was restricted to buildings constructed of large prefabricated concrete slabs (Plattenbauten). Since 1990,
Leipzi
Large housing estates facing socio-demographic change
the estate has been facing a huge loss of population (Table 4.1.4), as well as sociallyselective out- and in-migration. The consequences are significant vacant housing and ongoing demolition. The main causes of the significant decrease in population in Grünau are, on the one hand, the same as for Leipzig in general, i.e. labour-migration to western Germany, and suburbanisation. On the other hand, the population decline is also a result of the neighbourhood’s relatively young history. During the 1980s, mainly young families moved into the area: they were provided with a well-equipped apartment, often for the first time in their lives. Thus they experienced a real improvement in their housing situation. They valued the relatively high standard of housing, and many of them developed a strong attachment to the area. Over the past 20 years, many of these original inhabitants aged there, “in place”. But from 1990 onwards, their children started leaving the neighbourhood and, in many cases, also left Leipzig. The estate therefore lost those young people who might have become the area’s future parents. Therefore Grünau, in comparison with other parts of Leipzig, is now an “older” neighbourhood, and will continue to be so. Population projections show that only 32,000 to 40,000 people will live there by 2020, and they will mostly be older people (Table 4.1.4). By 2020, only some 20,000 apartments will be left, i.e. 10,000 less than today. As a result, entire areas of the estate will no longer have any residential use. The sheer scale of this process creates the phenomenon of “life-limited neighbourhoods” as discussed above. But, although Grünau will become smaller both in size and in population, it will continue to exist in the foreseeable future.
24 25
Table 4.1.4_Leipzig-Grünau – indicators of the housing market 1990/2005 and projections for 2020
1990
2005
2020*
Total resident population
85,000
48,000
32,000-40,000
Total number of households
34,000
24,000
18,000-21,000
Total number of dwellings
34,000
31,000
20,000-23,000
Share of housing vacancy
0%
20%
10%
Source: Stadt Leipzig 2007d, *projection
Figure 4.1.4: Demolition of blocks in Leipzig-Grünau
Photo: A. Peter 2008
Grünau not only needs to adapt to its shrinkage but also to its ageing population. This entails physical changes to the housing, to meet the needs of older people: for example, buildings with elevators, dwellings without barriers to independent living, and appropriate services available nearby are necessary. Such measures need not be areawide, and they need not be costly. Very often, it is the small measures that are helpful. This means that the strict high standards currently imposed for housing for older people, which are often identical to the standards imposed on housing for disabled people, needs to be rethought. Thus, it is not reasonable to expect all buildings to be modified: it is predicted that the majority of residents will be physically and mentally active to an older age than has been the case in the past. The expectations of older people, in terms of what constitutes good housing conditions, are the same as those of the younger generation. However, major refurbishment, not only in terms of accessibility for older or disabled people, but also in terms of modernisation, is not viable in Grünau because of the limited resources of both the housing organisations and the residents. Many landlords suffer from high vacancy rates and therefore have limited financial resources. Refurbishing the apartments is only affordable if long-term use can be guaranteed, but of course such a guarantee cannot be given. This situation affects the residents: their tenancies are insecure, and they face rising costs. They want to stay in their existing dwellings, in familiar surroundings, and continue to pay rent at the current level. But due to the increase in vacant housing, social networks diminish, and the continued existence of their homes becomes unclear. In addition, both relocation and high-cost refurbishment means rising housing costs.
1
Leipzi
Information given by the representatives of the Department of European and International Affairs and the Department of Urban Regeneration and Residential Development of the City of Leipzig, 25/08/08.
How does the City of Leipzig deal with demographic changes in the field of housing?1
The City of Leipzig pursues an integrated urban development strategy. This includes measures and projects designed to stabilise the social balance of the city’s neighbourhoods. The aim is to discourage out-migration and to promote the social and economic wellbeing of all groups of inhabitants. The key local target areas are the former
working-class neighbourhoods in the eastern and western parts of Leipzig (the “Soziale Stadt” and “URBAN II” programmes, respectively), and also the large Grünau housing estate (the “Soziale Stadt” programme). Specific measures have been developed for the urban renewal districts, the redevelopment areas, and the conservation of the city’s historic architecture, including its monuments and listed buildings. These specific measures include the following:
- the Selbstnutzerprogramm: to provide cheap residential property in the city to specific target groups of owner-occupiers: young families and older people (50+),
- the renovation of kindergartens and schools: to ensure high quality childcare
- diverse measures: to upgrade the residential environment and improve public
and education, especially in deprived neighbourhoods, space and buildings for all age groups. A specific example is the Wächterhäuser scheme. Wächterhäuser literally means ‘houses with a guard/guardian’. This scheme is an initiative of the HausHalten association, founded in 2004, and is supported by the City of Leipzig. The goal of the Association is to preserve endangered buildings and to find new uses for these buildings on a non-commercial basis. The background to the initiative is the concentration of listed but vacant buildings from the Gründerzeit period, that are located on major roads, and which are important for urban cohesion. The project provides an alternative to the usual rental market, and attracts interest from people with ‘alternative’ lifestyles and different living requirements from the ‘norm’, who are not catered for by typical rental conditions e.g. students, young professionals or artists. The occupants become the ‘guardians’ of the building. Their presence helps to prevent vandalism, to limit weather damage, and to ensure general maintenance. In most cases, the legal owners of the buildings allow the users to inhabit the flats rent-free. The basic premise of the initiative is that the new residents give the whole neighbourhood an image of openness and originality. As a result, the neighbourhood is likely to attract more inhabitants. The City of Leipzig now has a new integrated urban development scheme which covers the next decade or so, known as “City 2020 – redesigning the future” (Stadt 2020 – Zukunft neu gestalten). Demographic change is one of its major topics.
26 27
Brn
4_Profiles of five cities 4.2_Brno Brno is the second largest city in the Czech Republic, with almost 370,000 inhabitants living in an area of 230 km². As the regional capital of South Moravia, it also serves as a supra-regional centre of administration and justice for the Czech Republic. In addition, Brno is the most important trade fair and exhibition centre in East Central Europe. In the past 20 years, Brno’s tertiary, or service, sector has gained significance. Within the context of population and housing market development, also Brno’s function as a centre of education, science and research needs to be highlighted; and the fact that there are five public universities with more than 65,000 students shows how important the education sector is for the city. In the following sections we look more closely into recent demographic and housing market changes in Brno. Demographic development
After World War II, from 1945 onwards, the population of Brno grew steadily (Fig. 4.2.1). This trend lasted until 1993 when the peak population reached 390,000. In-migration was the driving force of this population growth. Even in the 1980s, when there was already a natural population decline, net migration still outweighed the natural decline (Table 4.2.1). Table 4.2.1_Brno – natural population development and migration balance 1951–1990
1951-1960
1961-1970
1971-1980
1981-1990
1951-1990
total
Natural population development
15,675
3,676
8,978
-2,605
25,724
Migration balance
13,366
22,294
22,866
23,444
81,970
Total population development
29,041
25,970
31,844
20,839
107,694
Source: ČSÚ 2006
Between 1994 and 2006, Brno’s population decreased (Fig. 4.2.1 and 4.2.3). In 1994, positive net migration still compensated for the natural decline. But as out-migration increased during the 1990s, this led to a net outwardmigration.
300,000 250,000
368,533
366,384
366,904
368,296
369,71?
371,448
375,265
383,034
390,073
390,051
374,370
335,700
320,947
284,670
350,000
242,485
Inhabitants
400,000
289,326
Figure 4.2.1_Brno – population development 1937–2007 (as of 01/07)
200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0
1937 1945 1950 1960 1970 1980 1993 1994 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Sources: ČSÚ 2006 and 2008
28 29
As for recent years, two main demographic trends can be identified:
– Firstly, out-migration caused population loss: the number of people moving out of the city doubled between 2000 and 2002 and then stabilised (to between 6,900 and 7,900) up until 2006. During that time, the number of people moving into the city also doubled, but because smaller numbers of people were involved, there was a net out-migration between 2000 and 2006. Out-migration during this time was mostly caused by growing suburbanisation which had started to become significant in 1999/2000 (see info-box below). Suburbanites are predominantly aged between 20 and 35.
– The second main demographic trend in terms of population loss during this time was the long-term natural population decrease. Only recently has Brno experienced a positive population increase again (Fig. 4.2.3).
Info-box: Suburbanisation in Brno: a recent phenomenon As with other European cities, Brno has seen the suburbanisation of retail outlets, services, industries and housing. This trend has intensified since 1999, with significantly increasing numbers of people moving to suburbia and the urban hinterland. Fig. 4.2.2 shows the increase in population around Brno, and the loss of population mainly from the inner city (and less, for example, from the large housing estates). Between 2001 and 2003, there was a net out-migration to the suburbs of some 5,000 people (Table 4.2.2). Municipal experts estimate a loss of about 20,000 inhabitants to suburbia since 1990.
Suburbanisation is socially and demographically selective. Mostly, it is families with higher incomes and qualifications who move to suburbia, looking for detached houses in rural surroundings. In effect, the inner city loses facilities and inhabitants, and the city faces spatial deconcentration. Suburbanisation leads to growing urban infrastructure costs, more commuters and traffic, and increasing socio-spatial differentiation and fragmentation. But problems also arise in the suburban locations. For example, the social and physical infrastructure is burdened with rapidly rising demand; and social tensions between established inhabitants and new inhabitants can occur due to lack of integration. Suburbanisation has partly been caused by a demand for new homes due to housing shortages and lack of available rental dwellings within the city. Until recently, both the government and banks supported the construction of new homes with cheap finance. More recently, developers changed their strategy and began to build homes for the middle classes, so that suburban housing has become more affordable for a greater range of people. In the last few years, the supply of cheap public finance has decreased and suburbanisation has levelled off (Maier 2001; Maas 2007).
Finally, a specific form of suburbanisation in the Czech Republic is the upgrading of weekend homes into permanent residences.
Brn Fig.4.2.2_Comparison of population between 1991 and 2001
!
&*+"/0#
&'"#
-./0#,
&'"#4-("0#,
!"#$%#
1#2#"3" &'()*+, !
S ources: VCRR MU 2005; MMB, Department of Planning and Development. We are grateful to the Institute of Geonics (AV ČR v.v.i.), Brno, and to Dagmar Haase (UFZ) for information and technical assistance.
Table 4.2.2_Migration balance between Brno and its surrounding districts District
1991-1995
1996-2000
2001-2003
$! "!
1991-2003 total
Brno Venkov
-667
-2,674
-3,871
-7,212
Blansko
-22
-378
-304
-704
Břeclav
161
-196
-126
-161
Hodonín
202
97
17
316
Vyškov
-116
-750
-637
-1,503
Znojmo
100
-113
-159
-172
Total
-342
-4,014
-5,080
-9,436
#! %&
30 31
According to Czech Statistical Office (ČSÚ) data, the first time the number of inhabitants increased in the new millennium was between 2006 and 2007: to a population of 368,533 people (Fig. 4.2.1 above). Other data sources (ISEO registry of the Czech Ministry for Interior) show the timing of this first population increase as occurring earlier: in 2004 (see also Addendum). Figure 4.2.3_Brno – natural population development and migration balance 1991-2006
1,038
1,961
2,500
-300
-104 -868 -1.447
-196
-383
-2,111
-2,751
-2,500 -3,500
-750
-723
-656
-39 -1,007 -700
-79 -1,119
-1,060
-305
-68 -1,399
-1,261
-1,346
-415 -1,181
-1,500
223
280
453 -416
-222
Inhabitants
500 -500
528
1,500
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Source: ČSÚ 2007
natural population development
migration balance
Brn The recent growth in population was caused by three main factors: an increasing number of births; stable mortality rates (between 4,200 and 3,800 deaths annually); and a lower negative or even a slight positive migration balance than in earlier years. Taken together, the number of inhabitants of Brno grew by 1,853 (0.5%) in 2007 in comparison with end of 2006 (ČSÚ 2008). But the increasing number of births, which is to be observed all over the Czech Republic, is likely to be a short-term phenomenon. The large birth cohorts from the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, which were the result of policies designed to raise the birth rate, are now at the stage of starting a family. Subsequent birth cohorts, during the 1990s, are significantly smaller: so when these 1990s birth cohorts enter their reproductive years, there are likely to be fewer births. While these trends are mirroring general demographic trends in the Czech Republic (CoE 2005, 76; VID, PBR 2008), they have to be seen in the context of the city’s specific situation, including its strong Roma community (see the second info-box below). The two main demographic trends for Brno, net out-migration and decreasing fertility, have resulted in changes to the population structure of the city, most significantly to the age profile (Table 4.2.3). Between 1991 and 2006, the average age increased from 37.9 years to 41.8 years. While the number of children (inhabitants aged 0-14 years) declined, the number of older people (aged 65+) increased. In 2006, older people exceeded children by 13,000. The index of ageing (shown in Table 4.2.3) provides a clear indicator of the overall ageing process. In addition, the absolute number of people aged 75+ increased between the census years (1991–2001) by about 0.8%. Their share of the entire population is currently almost 7%. In this context, it is likely that Brno’s future service provision, social infrastructure, and housing will need to be modified to meet changing demand. We expect this tendency to strengthen further and become a major factor in Brno’s urban development. Table 4.2.3_Brno – demographic indicators of ageing 1991-2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
Percentage of total population aged: 0-14
19.4
16.4
14.1
12.9
15-64
66.4
68.5
70.2
70.5
65+
14.3
15.1
15.7
16.5
Number of persons aged: 75+*
22,882
not available
25,165
not available
65+
55,552
58,600
58,717
60,616
Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64)
29.2
23.9
20.1
18.3
Age dependency rate (65+/15-64)
21.6
22.1
22.4
23.4
Index of ageing (65+/0-14)
73.9
92.3
111.6
127.8
Average age
37.9
39.1
40.6
41.8
Source: ČSÚ 2007; * only available from census data
32 33
In spite of population losses and the declining number of younger people, educational levels have changed: the absolute number (and share) of people with university degrees or similar higher educational achievements increased in the inter-census period. Between 1991 and 2001, i.e. before suburbanisation took pace, the number of people with low formal qualifications has decreased. (We expect this to change in the next census.) In this context, students are an important residential group in the city although they are not always registered citizens, as will be discussed below. At the public universities in Brno, the number of students increased from 45,000 in 2002/2003 to 65,000 in 2006/2007 (ČSÚ, Regional Office Brno 20022007). Since students are no longer just concentrated in halls of residence but increasingly share flats all over the city, this large student group has significant effects on the housing market. The student population also affects the demand for services, transport and the cultural, technical and social infrastructure (Steinführer, Haase 2008, 20). Population projections In 1993 and 1998 the Czech Statistical Office (ČSÚ) provided projections for future population changes in Brno (Table 4.2.4). Although not strictly comparable, the table also shows the only population projections for the city that have been published more recently. These were compiled by the Centre for Regional Development of the Masaryk University Brno (VCRR MU), and based upon the medium scenario of the earlier ČSÚ projections which they modulated to recent developments (Table 4.2.4). Table 4.2.4_Brno - population projections 2000 - 2030
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
ČSÚ 1993
386,161
383,811
378,501
370,696
361,647
-
-
ČSÚ 1998
382,962
378,426
374,523
369,119
361,647
-
-
-
370,388
369,620
368,783
366,180
361,143
353,811
VCRR MU 2002
Source: VCRR MU 2005 (also for ČSÚ projections)
According to these two sources, the population of Brno is predicted to decrease over the medium-term. However, recent population figures for the city show that the changes are likely to be even more marked than the projections indicate. Although the modified projection compiled by VCRR MU for the year 2020 was calculated at 366,180, in fact, the population had already fallen to this level by 2006 (the actual 2006 population was 366,680). Thus, both sets of available population projections are probably too high, due to an underestimation of the levels of out-migration.
Brn Concerning ageing, in 2006, the actual share of people aged 65+ was 16.5% (Table 4.2.3). The modified projection compiled by the VCRR MU predicts that the number of people aged 65+ years will have increased to 91,000 by the year 2030, representing 26% of the total population of Brno. Meanwhile, the proportion of children (aged 0-14) is predicted to decrease from 13% down to less than 11% (40,000). Despite the inevitable hypothetical nature of these projections, nevertheless, it seems likely that there will be two overall future trends for population changes in the city: significant ageing and moderate shrinking. Households and housing market: from problems of quantity to problems of quality The numbers and structures of households are key indicators for understanding the housing market. Therefore, before looking at the Brno housing market itself, we need to consider changes in household numbers and structures in the city. Unfortunately, this information is only available from the censuses of 1991 and 2001. Therefore, it does not reflect the exact current situation. Yet, already by 2001, the figures show a noticeable tendency towards more diversity and towards smaller units, which resulted in an increasing number of households, in spite of a shrinking population (+1%; Table 4.2.5). Table 4.2.5_Brno – indicators of the housing market 1991 and 2001 (census data)
1991
2001
Total resident population
388,296
376,172
Total number of dwellings
158,555
165,366
Total number of households
165,880
167,740
Total number of one-person households
51,573
55,788
Share of one-person households (%)
31.1
33.3
Average household size
2.34
2.24
Living space per inhabitant in m²
16.1
17.9
Source: ČSÚ 2003
However, not all of these households occupy a separate dwelling: in 2001 the Czech statistics show a difference of 2,000 between the number of dwellings and the number of households only for Brno. In the Czech research literature, this phenomenon is known as “households which don’t live on their own”, nebydlící domácnosti (e.g. Lux 2001, 34), and rooted in decades of housing shortage (see also below).
co-habiting couples with or without children)2 shrank by about 12% between 1991 and 2001. In contrast, the proportion of one-parent households (“incomplete families”) increased: from 19% in 1991 to 25% in 2001. At this time, one-person households already accounted for one in three households in the city. Also, the variety of household types grew in this inter-census period. For example, the share of multi-person households comprising unrelated people increased from 0.4% to 2.9%. These include both voluntary flat-sharers, and, due to the specific housing-market situation, involuntary flat-sharers who could not find their own housing. In the future, the number of households is likely to increase further, together with a growing demand for housing. The housing market of Brno is characterised by three main segments: tenement housing from before 1948; system-built housing stock from the 1960s onwards (paneláky); and detached and semi-detached houses (Table 4.2.6). In 2001, about 33% of the housing stock was owned by the municipality (46% in 1991); 27% was possessed by owner-occupiers; 22% was held by housing cooperatives; and 14% was owned by newly established associations of owner-occupiers. In the inter-census period, the mean dwelling size grew by about 2.9 m² to 44 m² (i.e. 17.9 m² per capita, which is less than half the mean housing space per person in Germany). Table 4.2.6_Brno – indicators of the housing market (census data 2001) Housing stock from before 1946
33%
Housing stock 1946-1990
61%
Housing stock 1991-2001
6%
System-built housing stock (paneláky)
43%
Dwellings in detached and semidetached houses
20%
Not permanently occupied dwellings*
8%
Dwellings owned by the municipality
33%
Privately owned dwellings
27%
Dwellings owned by cooperatives
22%
Dwellings owned by associations of owner-occupiers
14%
Sources: ČSÚ 2003, Steinführer 2006; * usually not vacant but occupied by non-permanent residents
Between 1991 and 2001, the total housing stock grew by just 4% (+6,800 dwellings; Table 4.2.5 above); and the number of permanently occupied dwellings remained stable (+53 dwellings). This is in contrast to the slightly increased number of households. As found across the entire Czech Republic, in Brno in 2001, the number of households was higher than the number of dwellings available (2,374 more households than dwellings). This is not surprising, as for many decades, the housing market in Brno has been characterised by a housing shortage. One of the most important strategies to solve the problem of housing shortage is the ongoing densification of already densely built areas, be it in the inner city or in the large housing estates (Fig. 4.2.4).
2
In connection with these trends, the number of what the Czech statistics call “complete families” (married or
T he Czech Republic statistics define married and cohabiting couples with and without children as “complete” families. This is in contrast with the more common definition of the family as a living arrangement of at least two generations, one of them being children or teens.
34 35
Brn Yet the situation is much more complicated than this, due to a variety of legal, economic and historical constraints (Kostelecký 2000; Steinführer 2004). In 2000, the Czech housing market researcher, Martin Lux, found an “artificial housing shortage” (Lux 2000, 23) across the whole Czech Republic, a rather unusual assessment at that time. However, in 2001, when housing shortage was still the main focus of the country’s housing policies, also the authors of the municipal Housing Strategy for Brno stated that, quantitatively, the housing supply in the city was sufficient (MMB 2001, App. 1, 1).
Figure 4.2.4: Residential extensions in the inner city (left) and the large housing estate Líšeň by attic conversion (Photos: A. Steinführer 2004, K. Großmann 2007)
In addition, the housing market is highly fragmented. In Brno, as in the whole Czech Republic, rental housing became increasingly marginalized in the post-socialist period (Steinführer 2004). Due to a complexity of different causes, the municipal housing sector (i.e. dwellings owned by the municipality: 33% of the entire Brno housing stock in 2001) is almost inaccessible to people looking for a flat: at least, not legally accessible. This is due to the fact that sitting tenants are strongly protected by law. By the ‘dekret na byt’ (a quasi-contract from the state-socialist period), tenants have similar rights to those of owner-occupiers. This dekret can be inherited or traded. Furthermore, there are still fixed rents in the municipal housing market segment, and prices in this sector have only been raised slightly during the last 17 years in comparison with other housing market segments. This has kept renovation activities relatively low. Only for newly constructed houses and for rental contracts starting after 1990, are rents subject to market prices. Therefore, newcomers to the housing market have four choices: they either have to look for owner-occupier housing; or they have to find a home to rent in the very small private rental housing market; they can try to buy a dekret or they rent in the widespread grey and black markets.
36 37
Another related phenomenon, already mentioned above, is the fact that in many cases, different generations, or even different households of unrelated people, are forced to share one dwelling. Together with the low average living space per person, this indicates the potential for further rising demand. Finally, as also mentioned above, while the overall number of dwellings remained almost stable between 1991 and 2001, the number of detached and semi-detached houses rose by 2,406 in the same period. This was accompanied by decreasing population densities in inner-city districts, and increasing densities in the housing estates, which are mostly at the urban fringe. This is another consequence of the ‘intra-urban’ suburbanisation: the trend for relocation within the administrative borders of Brno. However, residential suburbanisation has increased since the 2001 census, but there is no data available on this. (It is the censuses which provide the most useful and the only comprehensive information about housing market structures). The findings discussed so far are mainly based upon census data from 2001. From ongoing qualitative investigations within the conDENSE research project, we know that there have been several significant changes in the housing market in recent years, particularly since the accession to the European Union in 2004:
– Firstly, the Czech Republic, and in particular its largest cities, Prague and Brno, experienced a booming
– Secondly, there was a considerable increase in the privatisation of municipal housing to sitting tenants: this
property market after 2004, with rapidly increasing prices. mainly affects inner-city tenement housing. While in 1999 the City of Brno still owned 93% of its original housing stock (1991=100%), this share has rapidly decreased in recent years. By 2002, the municipality owned 87% and by 2006 only 68% of the original housing stock (Chlupová et al. 2008, 18). However, in contrast with other Czech cities, the privatisation of publicly-owned housing in Brno is relatively slow since the municipality does not favour a give-away privatisation of its entire housing stock.
– The final point to make here is that after the reform of housing allowance in 2004, students became decisive players in the housing market. Since then, all students, regardless of their housing status, have been eligible for a housing allowance. This has opened up a completely new housing market segment to them: private rental housing, be it legally or illegally. Often, municipal renters and owner-occupiers do not live in the dwelling for which they are on the tenancy or property agreement; instead they rent the dwelling out (sublet it), either formally or informally, to other people who are not on the tenancy agreement. This is a further reason why official population numbers should be treated with caution (see also Chapter 4.3 on Łódź and the Addendum). From these last points we conclude that there is an urgent need for inter-census monitoring of the housing market. The City of Brno already once made good experience with such investigations when conducting the project “Housing, an integral approach” between 1999 and 2002, which, in cooperation with Utrecht (a member of EUROCITIES), resulted in the Brno Housing Strategy 2001 (MMB 2001 and 2002; City of Brno/ Municipality of Utrecht 2002).
Brn Info-box: Romanies in Brno: spatial concentration, social exclusion and promising local projects* The population of the eastern part of Brno’s inner city includes a Roma minority, most of whom migrated to Brno from Slovakia in the 1990s. The most recent Brno census (2001) shows just 374 people are Romanies. However, the size of this ethnic minority group is significantly higher, as qualitative research shows that many will have categorised themselves as Czech or Slovak nationality. Local estimations range from 10,000 people to a likely overestimation of 35,000 people.
The Roma minority has a higher proportion of younger people than the Brno population as a whole, and also a higher birth rate, although this has decreased during the last few years. As a whole, the group shows a higher average number of children per woman and earlier childbearing.
In everyday conversation, in the media and even in planning debates, the main term used for their neighbourhood is “the Bronx”, a clearly defined area that is also on the mental map of Brno. For the Czech majority, these parts of the city represent the least sought-after areas in a wide range of residential locations. A local real estate agent told us that in terms of house hunting neither the customer nor the agent would even mention this area as a possible place to live. It is common knowledge that this is “the Gypsies’ home”, even though Czech people also live there, mainly older people with lower socio-economic status.
The spatial concentration of Romanies in some of the areas with Brno’s poorest housing conditions goes hand-in-hand with social exclusion: the one reinforces the other. Many Roma have little or no formal education and are either unemployed (about one third of all unemployed in Brno are Roma people, i.e. circa 4,000 persons) or work in unskilled and thus badly paid jobs.
Yet, a number of initiatives are helping to regenerate the eastern part of Brno’s inner-city area. In 1991, the Museum of Roma Culture was founded: the first in the Czech Republic and, possibly, the first in Europe. In 2000, a permanent exhibition was opened to the public (www.rommuz.cz). Another project which ran from 1999 to 2003, initiated by NGO Drom and supported by the municipal government and the Ministry of Regional Development, worked to improve housing conditions by refurbishing two highly dilapidated tenement houses in the area. The work was carried out by people who owed rent to the municipality, enabling them to cancel their debt and move into an improved home.
* We are grateful for background information on this topic provided by Jana Pospíšilová (Ethnological Institute, AV ČR v.v.i., Branch Brno). Photo: A. Haase (2004)
38 39
How does the City of Brno deal with demographic changes in the field of housing?3 For the City of Brno, ageing of the population and suburbanisation are highlighted as the biggest local problems at present. A limited supply of affordable and attractive housing within the inner parts of the city is leading to outmigration of the population, to the outskirts of the city or to areas outside the city boundaries. But these people still travel into Brno for work, education, shopping, health care, culture and sporting activities. A negative consequence of commuting is the intense traffic, causing environmental pollution. Furthermore, household structures are changing: in particular, the number of one-person households is increasing. Due to these trends, the City of Brno is planning to increase the supply of different types of housing, as well as increasing the land available for housing: the local land-use plan is currently under negotiation. To address the requirements of the ageing process, the Social Service Plan (by 2009) contains concrete strategies in the field of care for older people and other vulnerable groups. According to key municipal planning documents (e.g. City of Brno Strategy, Master Plan, Communal planning, General housing plan/Generel bydlenĂ), the City of Brno actively supports development projects which improve the quality of the city. The specific strategy is based on three pillars with specific aims: - Quality of life: improving the attractiveness of life
cultural events; by ensuring public safety; and by adopting effective social and health care policies. – R esearch, development, innovation and education: preparing conditions that attract and keep human capital in the city, by ensuring an infrastructure for research, development and innovation; and by fostering innovative policies in the field of human resources development. – Local economic development: creating an environment in Brno that will attract business enterprises.
3
housing, more leisure and sports activities, and more
Information given by the representative of the Foreign Relations Department of the City of Brno, 31/07/08.
within the city, by offering a greater variety of
Łód
4_Profiles of five cities 4.3_Łódź Łódź is the third largest city in Poland after the capital city of Warsaw and the city of Kraków. For a long time, Łódź was Poland’s second largest city, but due to significant population losses over the last two decades, it was overtaken by Kraków in 2007 (Kraków 757,000 vs. Łódź 753,000 inhabitants). Łódź is one of Poland’s second-order cities, and fulfils important administrative, economic and cultural functions for the whole region (voivodeship). Demographic development from growth to decline
Following the severe population decline and the loss of its multi-ethnic past as a result of World War II (the Holocaust, and the resettlement of the German population), Łódź saw steady population growth during state socialism between the 1950s and the 1980s (Fig. 4.3.1). This was driven by high birth rates as well as by labour migration. The highest population was reached in 1984/85; since then, population has been decreasing. The 1988/1989 growth was due to the administrative enlargement of the city’s boundaries. Population loss accelerated during the 1990s: from 1988 to 2006, the city lost almost 100,000 inhabitants (11%) – a striking story of decline.
760,251
767,628
774,004
779,129
785,134
786,526
798,418
806,728
828,459
838,367
848,258
851,700
851,500
817,983
762,700
800,000 750,000 700,000 650,000 600,000
630,000
Inhabitants
850,000
847,900
900,000
825,200
Figure 4.3.1_Łódź – population development 1950–2006 (per 31/12)
1950 1970 1978 1985 1988 1989 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, GUS 2008
In the 19th and 20th centuries, Łódź was a textile city (the ‘Manchester of Poland’ – in the same way that Brno was the ‘Manchester of Moravia’). During the two decades or so after 1945, the city experienced a new era of economic prosperity as the centre of the Polish textile industry. By 1970, about 60% of all employees worked in the industrial sector (228,000 persons). But by 1980, this proportion had decreased to 50% (204,000 persons) and by 1990, it was down to 38% (93,000 persons) (Jakóbczyk-Gryszkiewicz 1997, 115). In the 1980s, the decline in the textile industry in Łódź was already causing population loss. From the 1990s onwards, the economic structure of the city changed significantly, in favour of the service sector (Riley et al. 1999, 26).
40 41
Current shrinkage due to natural decline and out-migration Recent population decline in Łódź can be attributed to two causes: firstly, more deaths than births, and secondly, losses do to out-migration and emigration (Fig. 4.3.2). From 1988 to 2002, the general fertility rate (GFR) in Łódź decreased from 39.8 to 26.2 births per 1,000 women (aged 15-49). In that period, taking 1988 as the baseline of 100%, the dynamic fertility rate indicator decreased to 67%. Much of this decline in the fertility rate has been due to postponement of childbearing, and is thus typical of reproductive behaviour in the whole of Poland and in other post-socialist countries (Okólski 2006, 105-11, Slany 2007). In Łódź, the difficult economic situation after 1989 further contributed to this trend. Recent data, however, indicate the first symptoms of a meantime “recovery”, i.e. a rising fertility rate. In addition to the natural population decline (the surplus of deaths over births), population decline in Łódź has also been caused by out-migration. The numbers involved are lower than for natural decline, but they are made up of both inter-regional migration and low-level suburbanisation (Haase, A. et al. 2007, 156-7). Over the last decade, from 1999 onwards, Łódź has seen a net out-migration every year (Fig. 4.3.2). Figure 4.3.2_Łódź – natural population development and migration balance 1990–2006
-1,791 -4,926
-4,674
-1,369
-1,149
-957 -4,500
-968 -4,785
-4,924
-5,280
-743
-409 -5,530
-6,015
-5,692
-5,400
-5,306
-5,393
-4,796
-721
183 -145
-211 -4,804
-6,000
-4,559
-4,000
-4,448
-2,000
-4,021
Inhabitants
-14
146
0
51
141
589
1,051
2,000
-8,000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Source: GUS 2008
natural population development
migration balance
Łód Between 1991 and 2006, the outflow of people from Łódź to other regions in Poland gradually increased while the inflow of people remained more or less stable (Table 4.3.1). The data also shows fewer people moving in from rural areas. This can be explained in particular by the high unemployment rates in Łódź during the 1990s. In that period the city also lost its status as an important Polish centre for in-migration from other regions of Poland. The official figures for Łódź show a net international emigration throughout the entire period, with more inhabitants moving to other countries than foreign nationals moving in. However, the numbers of people involved are low (between 26 and 228 people per year: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, 64). In comparison with other large cities in Poland, Łódź and Poznań were the only cities showing a negative migration balance for the whole period between 1995 and 2005 (Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, 64 and 66). In terms of the total number of in-migrants between 1988 and 2002, the majority originated from other urban areas (59%), a minority were from rural areas (34%) and a very low percentage came from abroad (5%). Table 4.3.1_Łódź – inter-regional migration 1991-2006 Year 1991
In-migration
Out-migration
from urban areas
from rural areas
to urban areas
to rural areas
2,443
2,147
2,401
1,056
1996
2,316
1,758
2,317
1,696
2001
2,206
1,463
2,265
1,975
2006
2,616
1,609
2,900
2,720
Source: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008
Yet, official migration statistics need to be interpreted with caution. They often give an incomplete representation of the true picture, as their quality depends heavily on the willingness of migrants to register their actual behaviour. In Poland, the official regional population registers are regarded as significantly incomplete (Kowalski, Śleszyński 2006, 111). So the numbers reflect just part of the true migration process. This relates especially to seasonal and long-term labour-related emigration to Western Europe, but also to students and young professionals who have moved to the city but are still registered at their parents’ residence. Qualitative research carried out by the authors in Łódź and other Polish cities over the last few years (as part of the conDENSE project), showed strong evidence of the phenomenon of incomplete data. Moreover, the data on urbanto-rural migration do not differentiate between urban-to-suburban migration on the one hand, and urban-to-rural migration on the other. Thus, suburbanisation that has increased for Łódź during the past decade cannot be detected from the official statistics. Neither are there data on intra-urban migration (which, for example, is also a problem in Brno). The rates of population change within single districts of Łódź between 1988 and 2002 were at a low level (mean value 5%). It was only the inner city that displayed a higher level of population change between 1988 and 2002 (10%; see also below).
42 43
Ageing and changing household structures Over the last few decades, the city of Łódź has faced a continuous and significant process of ageing. This can be attributed to various factors. Firstly, there has been a drop in birth rates and an increase in life expectancy (Kurek 2008). Secondly, the postponement of childbearing has played a role. Thirdly, the city has seen a net out-migration of people of working age (and thus a decreasing share of this age group) because of high unemployment. Fourthly, suburbanisation4, although not on a very high level, has mainly involved younger and middle-aged groups moving out to the suburbs. These processes have resulted in an accelerating ageing process (Table 4.3.2). Table 4.3.2_Łódź – demographic indicators of ageing 1988-2006
1988*
1996
2001
2002*
2006
Share of total population aged 0-14
18.9
15.4
12.5
12.4
11.3
15-64
68.4
69.0
71.1
71.1
71.8
65+
12.6
15.6
16.4
16.5
16.9
40,973
52,153
53,092
62,174
65+
107,659
127,319
129,684
130,092
128,291
27.5
22.3
17.6
17.4
15.8
18.4
22.5
23.0
23.2
23.5
66.7
101.2
130.7
133.0
148.8
not available
39.8
41.1
not available
42.5
Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-65) Age dependency rate (65+/15-65) Index of ageing (65+/0-14) Average age**
Sources: GUS 2008, authors’ calculations; * census data; ** the mean age could in reality be slightly higher since only aggregate data are available for the 85+ age group.
The index of ageing (i.e. the ratio of older people to children) increased from 67 in 1988 to 149 in 2006. In the same period, the share of children decreased from 19% to 11%, while the percentage of the population of working age (15-64) remained more or less stable (68% in 1988 vs. 72% in 2006). The percentage of older people (aged 65+) grew from 13% in 1988 to 17% in 2006. Consequently, the average age also increased. Looking at the population aged between 15 and 64 years, the share of the younger age groups (to 44 years) decreased, while the share of those aged between 45 and 64 years grew considerably (Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, 20).
4
43,318
To a small degree, suburbanisation already occurred before the beginning of post-socialist transition.
Number of persons aged: 75+
Łód In contrast to the city’s significant 7.7% loss of population from 1988 to 2002 (during which time the number of inhabitants declined by 66,000; Fig. 4.3.1 above), the number of households increased by 3%. This was due to a significantly growing number of small and, in particular, of one-person households (+40%; cf. Table 4.3.3 and Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, 31). The share of one-person households in the inner city reached 40% in 2002. At the
5
We are grateful to our colleague Adam Bierzyński from the Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization at the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw for the information provided.
same time, the share of bigger households decreased (households with 3+ people declined from 44% in 1988 to 36% in 2002). These changes had to do, not least, with changing family structures and family size. During the inter-census period (1988-2002), the number of one-child families increased, while the number of families with two or more children decreased. Among families with parents aged <29 years, the number of one-child families increased by 5%, while the number of families with two children decreased by 6%. This gives evidence for the increase in mean age at first birth (due to the postponement of childbearing). Table 4.3.3_Łódź – indicators of the housing market 1988 and 2002 (census data) Total resident population
1988
2002
854,261
789,313
Total number of dwellings
313,764
316,206
Total number of households
342,235
351,952
Total number of one-person households
88,792
124,601
Share of one-person households (%)
25.9
35.4
Average household size
2.45
2.34
Sources: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, authors’ calculations
Non-traditional household types also increased in importance, but these are only partly covered by the statistics. Recent qualitative research in Łódź, in the course of the conDENSE project, showed evidence of a wide variety of households. They range from singles, to cohabiting couples, to flat sharers, and to even more complex, multi-household arrangements: we found, for example, a flat owned by a single person, and inhabited by him and a cohabiting student couple as unregistered subtenants, or flats that are shared by two or more family households. Also, the major difference between the number of inhabited dwellings and the number of households (Table 4.3.3) provides indirect evidence of such single-dwelling multi-household arrangements. The complexity behind the figures is, however, not detectable in the statistics. Even though there is some information about “non-family, multi-person households” in the Łódź census, it is impossible to clearly identify them as student flat-sharers or young professionals, as they could alternatively comprise unrelated older people, or perhaps impoverished people sharing a flat for economic rea-sons. Moreover, our research also provides evidence that the number of students living in Łódź, which is an increasingly important factor in the local housing market, is considerably underestimated.5 Qualitative research on these aspects is therefore indispensable: it gives clear evidence that official statistics often unveil only part of the complex story of urban socio-demographic change.
44 45
Socio-demographic change in the inner city Over the last decade, and almost undetected until now, the inner city of Łódź (district Śródmieście) has undergone a process of repopulation by non-traditional households. This has led to a younger age profile, or, at least, has countered the ageing process. For a long time, the inner city of Łódź had been especially affected by population losses. In absolute numbers, the population decreased from 99,000 in 1990 to 79,000 in 2005: a fall of 20% in relative terms (Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, 11). In 1988, the inner city had a comparatively “older” profile than the total city, with a higher proportion of older people and a lower proportion of younger people. But by the late 1990s, this trend started to change. Already the last census (2002) showed higher numbers of young people and lower numbers of older people in the inner city, compared with the city as a whole. Moreover, Śródmieście is characterised by a higher in-migration of young residents: at the overall city level, just 15% of all residents in their twenties had in-migrated to Łódź between 1989 and 2002; but for the inner city, over double that proportion, 33%, of all residents aged 20-30 had in-migrated between 1989 and 2002. According to our research, this trend has intensified in recent years. We found evidence of a significant number of unregistered newcomers living in the inner city for at least a limited period. These are mainly younger people in education, but also include early-stage professionals: they intend to stay in the inner city for a certain period of time, and tend to live in transitory and fluid housing arrangements (see also info-box > page 49). The urban demographic future – further population decline and ageing According to population projections (the latest one was published in 2004 by the Central Statistical Office GUS), the population decline of Łódź will continue during the next decades. The population decline is predicted at a rate of up to 6,000 people a year up to 2020; after that the decline may even rise to between 6,500 and 7,500 people a year. The total decrease in inhabitants in the period 2005-2030 is expected to amount to 164,000 people (which represents 21% of the total 2005 population; GUS 2004). Of the five largest cities in Poland, this is the most significant relative loss of inhabitants: during the period covered by the projections, Poznań will lose 15% of its 2005 population, Kraków and Wrocław 14% each, and Warsaw 9%. By 2030, the population of Łódź is predicted to be 605,000. Future population decline will be caused mainly by natural decrease (surplus of deaths over births), out-migration and emigration. The decrease is predicted to be primarily an effect of natural decrease (mainly due to low birth numbers). It is the main explanatory factor for the projected drop in inhabitants between 2006 and 2030. Suburbanisation will probably play a rather limited role also in the future.
Łód Table 4.3.4_Łódź – population projections 2005 - 2030
Year /share of total population/
change/ dynamic index
Łódź
2005
Share of total population
2030
Share of total population
2030-2005
2005=100%
Inner city
2005
Pre-working
Working
Post-working
age (0-17)
age*
age**
111,315
508,709
148,877
14.5
66.2
19.4
66,848
339,911
198,345
11.1
56.2
32.8
-44,467
-168,798
49,468
60.1
66.8
133.2
12,558
55,153
13,669
Share of total population
15.4
67.8
16.8
2030
7,478
37,090
19,420
Share of total population
11.7
58.0
30.4
2030-2005
-5,080
-18,063
5,751
2005=100%
59.6
67.2
142.1
Source: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008; * working age men: 18-64 / women: 18-60; ** post-working age men: 64+ / women 60+
The current process of ageing is also predicted to continue into the future. The forecast shows that the share of inhabitants of pre-working age (0-17) in the whole city will decrease between 2005 and 2030 from 15% to 11% (Table 4.3.4). According to these projections, it is the older age groups (64+) that will see the biggest increase (from 19% in 2005 up to 33% in 2030). The age dependency ratio (the number of people 65+ divided by the number aged 15-64) will double by 2030. Although the projections displayed in Table 4.3.4 compare the demographic development of the inner city with that of the whole city, the authors are not convinced about this linear extrapolation. This is because, as mentioned above, the inner city has started to attract younger inhabitants over the last few years and could maintain this trend in the future. This is, however, dependent on a number of other socioeconomic trends.
46 47
Housing market: ongoing shortage and quality problems As in other cities in Poland, the housing market in Łódź has changed considerably, due to privatisation and post-socialist restructuring after 1989. The changes are characterised first and foremost by a rising share of privately owned dwellings, which are occupied either by renters or owner-occupiers. There are also differences in the tenure structure: in the inner city tenure is predominantly private and municipal rental, with 36% and 41% shares, respectively; and in the large housing estates in the outer parts of the city, tenure is predominantly cooperative (Table 4.3.5). Over the past two decades, both the municipality and the cooperatives have been selling off their housing stock to sitting tenants for a very small percentage (only 10% to 20%) of the real market price. Consequently, there are many owner-occupied dwellings whose owners do not have the financial means to renovate them or even to maintain them. This holds especially true for the inner city, where the old housing stock is in a far worse condition compared with newer estates (Fig. 4.3.3 and 4.3.4).
Fig. 4.3.3: Bad physical state of the inner-city housing stock
Fig. 4.3.4: Large housing estate Retkinia (photos: A. Haase 2007 and 2008)
Łód Table 4.3.5_Łódź – indicators of the housing market (as of 2002*)
Łódź
Inner city
Housing market segments
total
in %
total
in %
Dwellings from before 1945
84,185
26.6
21,894
65.5
Flats 1946-1988
210,362
66.5
11,110
33.2
Flats 1989-2002
19,986
6.3
295
0.9
Not classified
1,673
0.5
120
Tenure
in %
0.4 in %
Private
28.4
36.0
Cooperative
44.8
17.0
Municipal
23.6
41.1
Other (state, company owned)
2.5
3.8
Flat equipped with Water
306,800
97.0
32,800
97.9
Toilet
283,500
89.7
29,200
90.8
Gas
264,300
83.6
26,300
84.5
Average room number
3.1
2.76
Average living space in m²
52.1
54.6
Source: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008; * census data
In the course of privatisation, new forms of tenure have developed: in particular, associations of owner-occupiers, i.e. people who have bought a home in a municipal building which also still has tenants (people who are renting). As a result, in a single building, there may now be at least three different types of tenure: firstly, long-term tenants, some of whom are sharing a home with other households; secondly, owneroccupier newcomers who have bought their home; and thirdly, tenant newcomers who are living in privately rented homes for a while. The municipality only has a limited influence on the housing market. In 2004-2005, it undertook a small inner-city revitalisation project called PROREVITA (see info-box below). This was restricted to two small inner-city areas. Due to the boom in the housing market from 2004 to 2007 (CEE Property Group 2008), prices went up significantly. While in 2004, the price per m2 was less than 3,000 Złoty (ca. 919 Euro), it went up to almost 6,000 Złoty (1,837 Euro) in 2007. Projects like the Scheibler lofts, in a former textile factory in the southern part of the city centre, play an important role in this revitalisation process. Moreover, in spite of the decline in population described above, new housing is also being built on the urban outskirts: on the fringes of the large housing estates and in adjacent rural areas. A considerable number of these new housing developments are guarded, fenced or gated. Such new housing has attracted mainly the better-off households, including people from Warsaw or abroad, who have bought the new properties in order to let them at high rents.
48 49
Info-box: An endangered ‘jewel’ in transformation – Łódź’s old built-up inner city6 The inner city of Łódź (Śródmieście) was not destroyed during World War II. So, one of Poland’s biggest historic built-up areas has been preserved. Characterised by its rectilinear street grid, which was laid out in the 19th century, at a time of rapid growth for the city, this area represents a major part of the cultural heritage of Łódź (Kaczmarek 1997). Today, the majority (66%) of the inner city’s housing still dates from before 1945, with 49% of homes dating back to before 1918 (Table 4.3.5 above). When they were built, some of the flats were very large (>100 m2), with generous room sizes and high-standard amenities. The rest of the dwellings in this area represent sub-standard housing.
family. Some flats are still shared by two or more households, with a shared corridor or even a shared kitchen and bathroom.
During the 1990s, the inner city was subject to commercialisation and renovation (Riley et al. 1999). Many small enterprises replaced the big factories. In some locations, the inner city lost its housing function. New shopping malls, such as Galeria Łódzka and Manufaktura, were established. The latter was created in one of the biggest former textile buildings: the Poznański factory (Fig. 4.3.5). To date, there has been little renovation of the old building stock: renewal activities are mainly restricted to historical sights and to selected buildings which today operate as banks, hotels, offices and shops. The housing stock was subject to only a few renewal activities renovation up until now. Consequently, decline is found side-by-side with urban renewal within the inner city (Fig. 4.3.6). In 2004-5, the municipality undertook the revitalisation project PROREVITA (www.prorevita.pl; Markowski and Stawasz 2007): this involved two small inner-city areas which were regarded as two of the least attractive residential neighbourhoods. Newly-built municipal rental housing (so-called TBS) was developed here, and this will remain as rental housing in the future. Recently, spot gentrification has occurred for individual streets or blocks, and while no large-scale polarisation exists to date, future polarisation cannot be ruled out.
According to our recent qualitative research in the inner city of Łódź, there are a small number of ‘convinced urbanites’ (i.e. city-minded people), who deliberately choose to live in housing in the old built-up areas, close to the city centre (in Łódź, the centre is defined by Piotrkowska Street). Many of the new, post-privatisation owners do not, however, have the money to renovate their flats and even less the staircases, roofs or facades. The same is true for the municipality. As a result, many old houses are in a very bad state of repair. Therefore, the biggest problem today for the old built-up areas is the on-going dilapidation and decay. Representatives of the municipality estimate that some 500 buildings are uninhabitable. Yet, in spite of this, about 300 of them flats are currently occupied. Poor condition and decay is the main reason for housing demolition (in contrast with Leipzig, where supply surplus is the reason). Between 1988 and 2002, a remarkable 3,300 flats, or 9% of the inner-city housing stock, was demolished.
6
War II (1945 onwards) and were assigned to Polish inhabitants. Many large dwellings were either divided up or given to more than one
Information given by representatives of the City of Łódź in October 2007 during our research in the conDENSE project and taken from the municipal website www.uml.lodz.pl.
Before World War II, many homes in the inner city were in German or Jewish ownership. These dwellings became state-owned after World
Łód Despite recent in-migration, the old built-up areas of the inner city are still regarded as some of the least attractive housing areas in the city. According to local experts, none of the large housing estates are, or are likely to be, as endangered as the inner city housing. Major initiatives are therefore necessary to preserve the built-up inner city heritage of Łódź.
Figure 4.3.5: Renovated and reused textile factory
Figure 4.3.6: Refurbished inner-city housing
Manufaktura (Photo: A. Haase 2007)
stock (Photo: A. Haase 2007)
50 51
How does the City of Łódź deal with demographic changes in the field of housing?7 The City of Łódź is aware of the problems of local demographic change, although in contrast to neighbouring Germany, few like to talk about population ‘shrinkage’. One reason is that, in Poland, population decline is often known as “depopulation” or “demographic de-pression” which have negative connotations
contrast: in spite of the significant population decline, a housing shortage prevails, and there are new housing construction projects both on the fringes of the city and also inside the city boundaries. Apart from the housing shortage, the topics that are currently at the top of the municipal agenda are, firstly, the poor condition of housing in the old built-up areas, and secondly, the revitalisation of the central parts of the city. This revitalisation work includes streetscapes, housing, urban infrastructure and green spaces. Major regeneration projects are planned for some of the attractively-located areas of the inner city (e.g. the area around the railway station Fabryczna), where there is scope to establish new cultural and commercial centres. Other, residential, areas that are poorer and less attractive are shown to be stagnating. However, some of them could undergo processes of gentrification and the construction of loft housing over the next years.
6
is that the housing market and the demographic reality continue to be in sharp
Information given by representatives of the City of Łódź in October 2007 during our research in the conDENSE project and taken from the municipal website www.uml.lodz.pl.
(e.g. Kowalski and Śleszyński 2006, 111; Obra-niak 1997). The other main reason
Bologna is Italy’s 7th largest city in terms of the number of inhabitants, and is the regional centre of Emilia Romagna. In 2007, the city had a population of some 372,000 living in an area of 140 km2. Bologna’s conurbation has a population of some 1 million. The city has several nicknames: la rossa, the red one, referring to the colour of many of its historic buildings; la dotta, the learned one, because it has the oldest university in Europe, founded in 1088; and la grassa, the fat one, which relates to the city’s rich cuisine. Having been a trading centre for centuries, with a tradition of hosting trade fairs, the city developed as one of Italy’s major industrial and transport hubs during the late 19th century. Today, the university, with its 96,000 or so students, has a considerable impact on the city’s urban life and local economy. For example, the Declaration of Bologna was signed here, in 1999, by European Ministers of Education attending the first meeting of the Bologna Process (which aims to
Bologn
4_Profiles of five cities 4.4_Bologna
unify European Higher Education). Bologna was declared the European City of Culture for 2000. It is characterised by a historic city centre, featuring one of the largest collections of architectural heritage buildings in Europe. In addition, Bologna is famous for its portici, a vast network of covered arcades or walkways, with an overall length of more than 40 km. Demographic development between decline, ‘recovery’ and ageing During the last few decades, urban Italy, and in particular Bologna’s administrative region of Emilia Romagna, has experienced similar population trends to other parts of Europe, including ageing. In addition, the region has seen more profound demographic changes than other parts of Europe: for example, declining marriage rates, later marriage, the postponement and also the decline of childbearing, as well as the emergence of smaller households. At the same time, there have been the dynamics of suburbanisation and counterurbanisation. People have moved out of the city into the surrounding areas or to the suburbs, due to changing employment and housing patterns as well as broader socio-economic trends (Buzar et al. 2007a, 69-81). However, the inner city of Bologna has started to change its demographic make-up, even though there is still a continuous population outflow to peripheral parts of the city or to adjacent settlements. (The inner suburban zone around Bologna is estimated to have some 275,000 inhabitants.) The last ten years or so have seen the emergence of new migration flows, as the city centre and the areas around it have begun to attract ever-increasing numbers of new residents. After World War II, Bologna experienced an initial phase of population decline during the 1950s, and then, after a short period of recovery in the early 1960s, there has been a second phase of population decline, beginning in the mid-1960s. This second phase of decline lasted until 2004. The current population is 140,000 less than the population in the early 1950s. The historic city centre lost slightly more inhabitants than the outer areas of the city. However, from 2004 onwards, the number of inhabitants has oscillated between 372,000 and 374,000, which points to some stabilisation after decades of population decline (Fig. 4.4.1). This trend is also positively interpreted by Bologna’s municipal experts.
52 53
It needs to be stressed that, for Bologna, there is a significant difference between its resident population and its daytime population. In the daytime, the city has an additional 140,000 people (about 100,000 commuters and 40,000 students) who are working or studying in the city but do not live there (Comune di Bologna 2005a, 1). So during the day, the city is host to about half a million people.
378,356
373,026
372,256
Inhabitants
385,136
1976
406,291
484,704
1973
500,000
432,406
493,535
600,000
461,765
Figure 4.4.1_Bologna â&#x20AC;&#x201C; population development 1973â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2007
1991
1996
2001
2006
2007
400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000
1981
1986
Source: Comune di Bologna 2007a
The long-term population decline of Bologna since World War II was caused partly by a surplus of deaths over births and partly by out-migration. Yet, while the surplus of deaths over births has remained constant since 1966, in-migration from other Italian regions has played an increasing role for Bologna. From 2001 to 2006, the city experienced more in- than outmigration (a net gain of 21,000 inhabitants). This outweighed the negative natural population changes of 2001-2006, and, as a result, the city saw a net population gain of 13,300 people (Fig. 4.4.2). Figure 4.4.2_Bologna â&#x20AC;&#x201C; natural population development and migration balance 1991-2007
984 -1,754
-1,834
-1,930
-1,637 -2,286
-1,785
-62 -2,067
-2,209
-2,361
-2,797
-2,616
-2,660
-1,111 -2,832
-2,876
-1,659
-3,540 -2,799
-2,685
-4,000
-2,088
-2,000
1,117
1,248
1,012
1,516
1,042
596
0
-2,985
Inhabitants
2,000
1,241
1,305
2,807
4,000
2,523
4,440
6,000
-6,000 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
natural population development
Sources: Comune di Bologna 2008d and 2008k
migration balance
770 inhabitants (0.2% of the total population; Comune di Bologna 2007a). Bologna’s positive migration balance is mainly due to people migrating out of other Italian regions (Mezzogiorno).To a lesser but increasing extent, population gains are also due to international immigration which has been an important factor during the last few decades. From 1989 to 2008, the number of foreign nationals living in Bologna increased from 3,400 to 36,000 (9% of the total population; Comune di Bologna 2008a, see also info-box > page 59). The majority of people now living in Bologna were not born in the city (2004: 64% of inhabitants not born in Bologna vs. 36% born in Bologna; Comune di Bologna 2005a, 3). Thus, for many inner-city districts, a considerable proportion of residents living there today have only moved to Bologna over the last decade.
Bologn
Currently, Bologna is no longer a ‘shrinking’ city. From 2006 to 2007, for example, the city only lost some
In general, the large historic city centre (centro storico) experienced only negligible population losses between 1993 and 2003. As Buzar et al. (2007a) underline, between 1999 and 2003 the inner city of Bologna “had the highest net inflow of population of the entire municipality” (ibid., 71): this was except for one small suburban area. This inflow indicates a new trend, discussed below under the heading ‘reurbanisation’. 1964 was the year of a ‘baby boom’, with 7,083 children born in Bologna. The number of births then declined continuously until the early 1980s (it reached its lowest value in 1981 with 2,318 births); the birth rate then remained at a very low level until 1994. Since then, however, the birth rate has undergone a slight but steady increase (from 2,193 births in 1994 to 3,013 in 2007; Comune di Bologna 2008b); and by 2007, the number of births was 17% higher than 10 years earlier (Comune di Bologna 2008b). The last few decades have also seen a postponement of childbearing: the mean age of mothers at first birth increased from 30.7 years in 1991 to 33.2 years in 2007. The overall share of older parents has also increased. In terms of natural population development during the last 10 years, statistics show that on average, there were 2,000 to 3,000 more deaths than births each year. In 2007, this natural population decline decreased to only 1,754 more deaths than births, due to a slightly higher birth rate and a slightly lower death rate. In addition, there was a positive migration balance (a net in-migration of 984 people). As a result, 2007 is being described as a “year of optimism”. Like most other European cities, Bologna faces an ageing of its residential population. This overall trend is reflected in the increasing share of older people from 1991 to 2007 (23% were aged 65+ in 1991 versus 27% aged 65+ in 2007); and a simultaneous decline in people of working age (from 68% to 62%). During the same period, the share of children (0-14 years) remained more or less stable with a slight positive tendency (rising from 8% to 10%). As a consequence, the mean age of the population increased slowly but continuously: from 46.4 years in 1991 to 47.7 years in 2002. Since then, it has remained more or less stable (Comune di Bologna 2007a; Table 4.4.1).
54 55
Table 4.4.1_Bologna – demographic indicators of ageing 1991-2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
Percentage of total population aged: 0-14
8.3
8.5
9.5
10.3
15-64
68.2
58.9
64.2
62.6
65+
23.5
25.8
26.3
27.0
Number of persons aged: 65-79
73,164
72,568
71,513
68,543
80+
22,201
26,620
27,848
32,281
Total 65+
95,365
99,188
99,361
100,824
Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64)
12.19
14.45
14.82
16.50
Age dependency rate (65+/15-64)
34.41
43.74
40.89
43.15
Index of ageing (65+/0-14)
283.1
303.5
276.8
262.1
Average age
46.1
47.3
47.6
47.7
Source: Comune di Bologna 2007a
This tendency towards decelerated ageing is also reflected in the index of ageing (the ratio of older people to children): this increased steadily until 1993, but has decreased during the last 12 years (80 in 1973; 303 in 1996; 262 in 2006; Table 4.4.1). As for the inner city, the index of ageing showed a similar trend but it has been decreasing since 1991 and showed a significantly lower value (246) than the city as a whole (266) in 2004. However, further and more dynamic ageing is expected in the future. Since Bologna is the workplace for many commuters, and since its amenities are used by both the urban and suburban population, ageing in the suburban zones and the wider hinterland must be taken into account when looking at the implications of demographic change for the city, its housing market and infrastructures. Future population development There are three key population projections for Bologna, based on optimistic, intermediate and pessimistic scenarios (Comune di Bologna 2008c and Fig. 4.4.3). The optimistic scenario predicts a continuous population growth by 2021 (from 374,000 in 2008 to 386,000 in 2021); the intermediate scenario predicts population stagnation at 374,000; and the pessimistic scenario shows a slight population decrease to 360,000 inhabitants by 2021. However, all three scenarios show that for the Bologna region as a whole, population growth is likely until 2013. After that date, the pessimistic forecast shows population decline in the areas surrounding Bologna as well. Different assumptions about migration account for most of the differences in the forecasts. While the “optimistic” scenario is based on a steadily growing net in-migration, the “intermediate” sees a steady net in-migration, and the “pessimistic” sees a decreasing net in-migration which approaches zero by 2021.
Inhabitants
385,000 380,000 375,000 370,000 365,000 360,000 355,000
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
optimistic scenario intermediate scenario pessimistic scenario
Bologn
Figure 4.4.3_Population scenarios until 2021 390,000
Source: Comune di Bologna 2008c
Households and housing market: facts and figures According to Bologna’s municipal figures, the number of households in the city, in terms of social and economic units (famiglia, see Addendum), has been continuously increasing since 1993 (from just under 174,000 to about 194,000 in 2007). This represents a growth of 12% (Comune di Bologna 2008l). During that time, households have become smaller (from 2.24 to 1.89 persons on average), and, due to their structure, more diverse. However, when looking at the use of the housing stock, in 2007 there were only 178,350 homes. Therefore, some 16,000 homes were inhabited by more than one household (famiglia) known as ménages in the municipal statistics (see Comune di Bologna 2007c and Addendum). As elsewhere, different studies use different definitions of ‘household’; and while the mean size of a famiglia (family) was 1.89 people in 2007, that of a ménage (people sharing kitchen, bathroom, and meals) was bigger (2.07 people). The share of one-person households has continued to grow in Bologna. In 2007, there were 92,644 one-person households (famiglia), representing 47.6% of all households, i.e. almost one in two households (Table 4.4.2). However, for a more realistic picture of the share of people living alone, one has to look at the share of one-person ménages. At 39% it is considerably lower (approximately 70,000 persons). Table 4.4.2_Bologna – indicators of the housing market 1991, 2001 and 2007
1991
2001
2007
Total resident population
406,291
378,356
372,256
Total number of dwellings
not available
194,862
not available
Total number of households (famiglia)
180,513
185,569
194,708
Total number of one-person households (famiglia)
60,062
76,750
92,644
Share of one-person households (famiglia; %)
33.3
41.4
47.6
Average household size (famiglia)
2.22
2.01
1.89
Living space per inhabitant in m²
35.0
40.2
not available
Sources: C omune di Bologna 2007a, 2007b, 2008l (data partly differing from tables in Addendum due to different data sources: above: municipal data, in Addendum: Urban Audit and others)
56 57
The difference between the numbers of households using the famiglia definition of a household, and the numbers referring to the ménage definition, is mainly due to the fact that a lot of younger people (students and young professionals) are sharing a home with others because of Bologna’s expensive housing costs. This is particularly true in the city centre (centro storico) and the larger inner city (see also Buzar et al. 2007a, 72-4). However, there are also multi-generation families living in one dwelling (mainly adult children and their parents; Comune di Bologna 2004, 14). In 2007, 28% of the total number of households (famiglie) was made up of two-person households, 15% were 3-person and 9% were bigger households (Comune di Bologna 2008l). But, interestingly, and contrary to predominant trends in most West European countries, the number of families with dependent children increased from 1995 to 2005: from 39,000 to 45,000. Among them, 44% are families with one child, 43% with two, 10% with three and 3% with more than three children (Comune di Bologna 2005b). Until 1993, the number of households with dependent children saw a decrease, but since then it has been increasing continuously. In the inner city, the number of households with dependent children decreased for a little longer, until 1994. But since then, the number of families with dependent children has been growing here, too. In terms of its housing market, Bologna is, like Italian cities in general, characterised by a predominance of owner-occupied housing, and a preference for such housing. Renting as a form of tenure is much less frequent than, for example, in Leipzig (Table 4.4.3). According to the census data from 2001, the share of owner-occupied housing in Bologna was 65% while rental housing was only 29%. The ratio of owneroccupied housing was lower in the inner city where there is more rental housing available: 54% was owner-occupied housing compared with 37% rented. This corresponds to the higher proportions of young and non-traditional households who live in the inner city, but do not own a home there: they prefer to rent, either from the private or the public sector. In different parts of the city, the share of owneroccupied and rental housing varies: between 74% and 53% for owner-occupied, and between 38% and 20% for rented, per district (the figures relate to inhabited dwellings only). Table 4.4.3_Share of owner-occupied and rental housing stock 2007*
Owner-occupied housing stock
Rental housing stock
Inner city
54.2
37.3
Outer urban areas
66.9
27.1
Bologna total
64.9
28.7
Source: Comune di Bologna 2007b; * the category “other tenure” is not displayed
figure for the numbers of vacant dwellings (i.e. dwellings that are available as homes but are vacant), but it is estimated to be about 7,000 dwellings (3-4% of the total stock). These flats are not rented out, but instead are kept empty by the owner, either because they are being sold, or because they are in a bad state of repair (Comune di Bologna 2005b).
Bologn
The census in 2001 counted 21,500 unoccupied dwellings (11% of the total stock). There is no exact
According to the census, there were 194,862 dwellings in Bologna in 2001. The average dwelling had 3.7 rooms and a floor space of 85 m2, and was inhabited by 1.7 people. The mean housing space per person was 40 m2 (Table 4.4.2 above). In the inner city, dwellings and space per inhabitant are generally bigger (at 95 m2 and 49 m2, respectively). Socio-spatially, Bologna is a divided city. The better-off areas with higher housing standards are situated in the southern part of the city (where there are hills and more greenery), while the traditional working-class areas are situated close to the industrial zone in the northern part of the city (Comune di Bologna 2007b). Consequently, the socio-economic status is higher in the south. Residents with lower socio-economic status tend to live in the north, thus unemployment there is higher and average incomes are lower. Also, in terms of the size of the dwellings, there is a noticeable south-north gradient.
Inner-city reurbanisation: a new tendency of urban development Bolognaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban development in recent years has been shaped by two main processes. On the one hand, there is a continuing suburbanisation, with households moving from the core of the city to the adjacent areas where new housing is being built. These new developments are often in the form of densely built, multi-storey housing, but also traditional singlefamily houses. On the other hand, during the last few decades, the inner city has been increasingly repopulated by younger households who are in their majority city-minded and prefer urban living. This is the process known as reurbanisation (Haase, A. et al. 2006, 168; Buzar et al. 2007a). Reurbanisation has not only affected the composition of the population, it also changed the image and social milieu of the districts. Within the European research project Re Urban Mobil (see Chapter 3 above), the authors investigated two traditional workingclass districts in more detail: Bolognina and San Donato. These are situated close to the historic city centre, but separated from it by the railway. During recent decades, both areas have suffered from population decline, ageing, and a loss of the traditional neighbourhood iden-tity. Due to their location on busy main arterial roads, leading to the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s adjacent regions, both areas have been increasingly affected by traffic and noise pollution (Commune di Bologna 2002, 30-4). Recently, both neighbourhoods have also faced the immigration of foreign nationals and a rise in younger households (e.g. students; Comune di Bologna 2004, 4).
58 59
for both these two vibrant and slightly run-down districts. Every third household had moved in during the last five years. In-migration brought about changes of household composition, age profile, and social structure (mainly with respect to educational attainment). There are three predominant types of recently-settled households: firstly, unrelated adults sharing a flat (36% in Bolognina and 28% in San Donato; Fig. 4.4.4); secondly, households with dependent children (families as well as single parent households; 32 and 26%, respectively); and thirdly, one-person households (although this was not evident from the questionnaire data7). Moreover, 55% of the newcomers were under 40 years old. Figure 4.4.4_Household types of reurbanites in % (n=99; based on survey data) 40 30 20 10 0 other types of flat household households sharing with children
young couple household
young one-person household
Household types of reurbanites (n=99)
Source: Haase, A. et al. 2006
The fact that there was also a significant number of young families who have chosen to live in the inner-city areas of Bolognina and San Donato, rather than moving to the suburbs, should encourage the municipality to foster the regeneration of inner-city areas and make them more family-adequate. Last but not least, the influx of immigrants has been crucial in terms of compensating for the rapid ageing process in these areas (see info-box).
7
questionnaire survey. We found evidence for recent household-driven reurbanisation
T he share of one-person households in both areas is considerably higher than the share shown among the respondents; this relates to strict rules of data protection in Italy and corresponding attitudes of the population (Haase, A. et al. 2006, 171-2, 174).
This was also proven by our research in 2003 and 2004 which was mainly based on a
Bologn
Info-box: International immigration: a major factor of urban development in Bologna
Bologna has seen a significant increase in the rate of international immigration during the last few decades. While in 1989 only 3,402
immigrants were living in the city, the number increased to 35,951 by 31 March 2008 (see also Fig. 4.4.5). At the same time, the share of
children with at least one immigrant parent increased. Compared with the city-wide average, the residential quarters of Bolognina (16%) and San Donato (12%) were characterised by relatively high immigration during the 1990s. Both are inner-city areas, formerly populated
by predominantly working-class residents (Haase, A. et al. 2005, 113-7). Generally, foreign nationals are overrepresented in the northern parts of Bologna whereas in the better-off southern residential areas, their share is considerably lower (Fig. 4.4.6). In early 2008, the majority
of international immigrants originated from Romania (4,171 persons), the Philippines (3,760), Bangladesh (3,012) and Morocco (2,862). Other countries of origin were Albania, China, Ukraine, Moldova, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Poland, the former Serbia-Montenegro, Peru and Eritrea. In terms of their age structure, the foreign nationals are a very young population. By 31 March 2008, their mean age was 32.1
years and thus far below that of the total population (47.7 years). Among Bologna’s residents aged up to 24 years, 15% are foreign nationals (compared with 9% in the total population; Comune di Bologna 2008a). For Bologna, immigration decisively contributes to a reduction in
ageing and to inner-city repopulation. The overwhelming majority of immigrants live in one-person households and share the dwelling with others; and many immigrants live in substandard housing conditions.
Our research surveys and interviews in Bolognina and San Donato showed that rising immigration is perceived in a mainly negative light by the residents in the affected areas. Mostly, this issue is mentioned as one of the reasons why people would not recommend to friends that they should move to these districts, or when giving reasons for a worsening situation in recent years. The main problems consist of differences in the organisation of daily life and a lack of language skills among both Italian and immigrant inhabitants. There is also a lack of knowledge about each others living circumstances and culture.
However, at the city level, local politicians have started to react to the steady increase of international immigrants. Some 10 years ago, a formal political institution was founded in Bologna: a forum of foreign civic associations. It encompasses 57 associations; and a body of 144 delegates works in a ‘parliament’ that meets twice a year to discuss any problems and the possible solutions. In 1999, in the district of San Donato, the intercultural Zonarelli centre was founded, which includes a special office for migration issues. In addition, an up-todate list of all foreign associations in Bologna, and the issues they deal with, is accessible to everyone via the municipal website. Hence, immigrants in Bologna have quite a good network of advice and information across the city.
Figure 4.4.5_Development of immigrants’ population
Figure 4.4.6_Share of immigrants in Bologna’s
in Bologna from 1989 to 2007 (as of 31/12)
urban districts in 2008
Source: Comune di Bologna 2008a
Source: Comune di Bologna 2008a
60 61
How does the City of Bologna deal with demographic changes in the field of housing?8 This section, on how Bologna is dealing with demographic changes in terms of housing, presents selected results of expert interviews from our 2002-2005 research for the Re Urban Mobil project. It also includes findings from the report “I dati in sintesi” (Comune di Bologna 2005a) which discusses the challenges of future planning with respect to demographic changes. In the interviews conducted in 2004, local experts mentioned demographic change as one of the major challenges for Bologna’s urban development (Haase, A. et al. 2005, 117-9). In particular, the following issues were highlighted: - t he ongoing process of ageing of the residential population, especially in certain districts, e.g. San Donato; - t he rising heterogeneity of people living together in a neighbourhood, due to demographic change, recent in-migration and increasing immigration, especially in those areas where students and immigrants meet older people (including ‘frail’ older people) and long-term inhabitants, with the resulting diversity of requirements for housing and amenities, on a small scale; - the consequences of immigration, which is also regarded as a chance to compensate for the ageing
also underlined the advantages of these neighbourhoods (central location, rental housing, moderate rents, smaller flats etc.) for different newcomers (e.g. low-income households, students, single parents and foreign nationals); - the lack of interest of young people in neighbourhood development and engagement in neighbourhood activities; - the necessity to improve of the residential environment, especially in the inner city and the northern parts of the city, to keep these areas attractive for residential use; problems of noise, traffic and lack of greenery should in particular be tackled by future policies. The 2005 report “I dati in sintesi” also discusses the need for the city to adjust to demographic changes, especially with respect to ageing. It underlines the importance of age-group-specific services and amenities, and emphasises the need for policies for older people, but also for children and families (in particular to encourage them to remain in the city), and for immigrants (see info-box above in page 59).
8
shifts in the residential structure, but also a loss of the traditional identity of the areas; the experts
Information from our research 2002-2005 and taken from the municipal website www.comune.bologna.it.
processes (“demographic resource”); - the stabilisation of working-class districts like Bolognina and San Donato, where we observed not only
In 2007, Liverpool celebrated its 800th anniversary. It is the UK’s sixth largest city, with some 440,000 inhabitants and an area of 111 km². It is also Britain’s second largest export port (after London), and is famous for its soccer clubs and vibrant music scene. The popularity of The Beatles and other music bands has contributed to Liverpool’s success as a tourist destination. Liverpool was named European Capital of Culture for 2008, along with the City of Stavanger in Norway. Its maritime heritage, together with its economic transformation over the past 60 years, are reflected in the cityscape. In 2004, the famous River Mersey waterfront, with its Pier Head and so-called ‘Three Graces’ (The Royal Liver Building, the Cunard Building and the Port of Liverpool Building), was made a UNESCO World Heritage site. Liverpool’s three universities, with around 40,000 students, are a further major factor in the city’s development (LCC 2001). Population trends – rapid growth, long-term decline and recent stabilisation Liverpool’s population trends need to be seen in a global geo-political context and are directly linked with the economic development of the city. For a long time, Liverpool’s docks played an important role as a traditional gateway for goods as well as for people, between the UK, Europe and other parts of the world. The growth of trade, and thus jobs, in the 18th and especially in the 19th centuries, brought massive population expansion in the city. In just 100 years, Liverpool’s population increased almost tenfold: from
Liverpoo
4_Profiles of five cities 4.5_Liverpool
77,000 in 1801 to 704,000 in 1901. In the 1930s, the population reached its peak: 870,000 inhabitants lived in the city, and 1.8 million inhabitants in the conurbation (Merseyside). At that time the city was known as the second city of the empire, after London (Misselwitz 2004). This phase of growth stopped in the late 1930s, at the end of the interwar period, when Britain’s economic centre shifted towards London and the south-eastern part of the country. During World War II, Liverpool and the Merseyside conurbation were one of the most bombed areas after London. Many of Liverpool’s historic buildings, as well as a large number of homes, were either destroyed or heavily damaged. Almost 4,000 people were killed, some 3,500 were seriously injured, and over 70,000 became homeless. The years immediately after World War II were characterised by reconstruction and a short phase of economic upturn; employment reached its peak in the early 1960s. However, increased maritime productivity (larger ships, faster turnaround, more containerisation), falling demand for imports and exports (due to the decline in manufacturing in its hinterland), and an unsuitable geographical location from which to exploit the expanding trade between the UK and the rest of Europe, then resulted in a massive decline in employment in Liverpool’s port and its associated industries.
62 63
Between 1966 and 1978, Liverpool lost 20% of its employment base; a further 18% was lost between 1978 and 1981 (ibid.). Within twenty years, the mono-functional maritime economy had collapsed, and by 1971, the city had lost more than half of its manufacturing industry (Couch 2003). The consequence was long-term population shrinkage. Between 1961 and 1981, Liverpool lost one third of its population; and between 1981 and 2001 the population decreased by a further 13%. As a result, the population has fallen to around 440,000. The scale of this population decline is comparable with that of Leipzig. It is also worth noting, that in spite of suburbanisation and urban sprawl, the total population of the Merseyside conurbation has also fallen, to about 1.4 million in 2006, as a result of the high out-migration to other regions (Couch et al. 2005). Fig. 4.5.1 shows the population development of Liverpool between 1961 and 2006.
1991
1996
436,100
500,000
439,300
600,000
468,000
Inhabitants
700,000
510,000
610,000
800,000
474,500
745,000
Figure 4.5.1_Liverpool – population development 1961-2006
2001
2006
400,000 300,000 200,000
1961
1971
1981
Source: LCC 2007a, UK Office for National Statistics 1991-2008
The population decline in Liverpool (as well as in the Merseyside conurbation) is exclusively a result of out-migration. Even during the dramatic population shrinkage of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, births exceeded deaths. Figure 4.5.2 shows both natural population development and migration balance in Liverpool between 1991 and 2006.
544
167
28 -252
-260
-65
-267
-2,500
-2,800 -3,800
-3,300
-3,200
-2,600
-2,400
-2,900
-3,400
-4,000
-3,200
-2,800
-2,600
-3,000
-1,500
-2,000
-2,300
-1,000 -1,800
Inhabitants
0
28
1994
201
320
1993
67
328
1,000
651
915
881
Figure 4.5.2_Liverpool – natural population development and migration balance 1991–2006 2,000
-5,000 1991
1992
1995
1996
1998
natural population development
Source: UK Office for National Statistics 1991-2008 (no data available for the year 1997)
1999
2000
2001
migration balance
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Liverpoo
The fact that there has been either a positive or an equally balanced natural population
development over the past twenty years, contributes to the fact that, in contrast to similar
shrinking cities in other European countries, the age structure of Liverpool in the last few decades has not changed dramatically. In fact, the proportion of each age group has hardly
changed at all in the last two decades (Table 4.5.1). This phenomenon can also be explained by the in-migration of younger inhabitants (15-29 years) for educational reasons. In this context the University of Liverpool, with more than 20,000 students, plays an important role. In all other age groups, more people migrated out of the city than migrated in, even among the 60+ age
group. In addition, the migration trend over previous decades has caused a reduction in the current size of older people (Table 4.5.1).
Nevertheless, 15% of Liverpool’s population is 65+, and the number of people aged 75+ is higher than the national average (UK Office for National Statistics 2006, LCC 2006a). Over the next few years, the number of older people aged
80+ will increase as a result of rising life expectancy. Furthermore, the post-World War I ‘baby boomers’, who were born in the 1920s and 1930s, are entering this age group. So, there is a growing need for high quality services and housing for older people. Table 4.5.1_Liverpool – demographic indicators of ageing 1991-2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
Share of total population aged: 0-14
20.0
20.2
20.1
17.8
15-65
64.2
64.9
64.6
67.3
65+
15.8
14.9
15.3
14.9
Number of persons aged: 65-74
42,400
39,200
37,600
35,100
75+
32,500
30,500
29,400
29,700
Total 65+
74,900
67,700
67,000
64,800
Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64)
31.2
31.2
31.1
26.4
Age dependency rate (65+/15-64)
24.6
23.0
23.6
22.1
Index of ageing (65+/0-14)
78.8
73.6
75.9
83.4
Source: UK Office for National Statistics 1991-2008
Another important and growing group within Liverpool’s population in recent years is the Black and Racial Minority (BRM) community. They grew from 3.8% of the total population in 1991 to 8.2% in 2001. One reason is the increased immigration of refugees and asylum seekers (LCC 2006a).
64 65
Demographic change in Liverpool has led to new household structures. As has been seen elsewhere, there has been a steady decrease in household size, and an increase in one-person households. The Census in 2001 showed an average household size of about 2.3 people. At that time, more than one third of the households consisted of one person. In addition, non-traditional household types increased in importance (Table 4.5.2). 16% of the total households were single retired adults without children; and 12% were one-parent households with dependent children. Table 4.5.2_Liverpool â&#x20AC;&#x201C; household indicators in 2001 (census data)
Total
Share
Resident population
439,200
-
Number of households
187,900
-
Number of one-person households
69,400
36.9%
One-person household: retirement age and no children
29,700
15.8%
One-parent households with dependent child(ren)
24,000
11.5%
One-parent households with no dependent child(ren)
9,900
5.3%
2.3
-
Average household size Source: LCC 2001
Liverpoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic decline in the last few decades has also had socio-economic consequences. To date, compared with the average for the UK as a whole, Liverpool has higher unemployment, a higher proportion of people claiming benefits, and lower household incomes (LCC 2008a, 2008b). At the end of 2006, the unemployment rate was more than 26% (UK as a whole: 14.7%). All in all, the city is one of the most deprived boroughs in the western EU (LCC 2006a). But in the mid-1990s there was an economic turnaround, and over the last 10 years Liverpool has been characterised by economic growth. This has given hope for population stabilisation, or even growth, as well as improved social conditions. Over the period 1995-2005, the Gross Value Added (GVA) increased by some 65%. The average GVA growth rate per year was 5.1%. Between 1998 and 2006 the total number of jobs increased by about 1.4% and the average annual growth in employment in the so-called knowledge economy was 2.1% (LCC 2008b). As a result, while there is still a negative migration balance, out-migration has decreased and inmigration has increased. Currently, particularly in the 25-29 age group, net migration is positive. Liverpool City Council is aiming for an end to long-term population shrinkage by 2010, with a key target of achieving a population of 500,000 by 2013 (LCC 2006a). Future projections for Liverpool (based on sub-national population projections), forecast a population increase to more than 470,000 by 2029 (LCC 2006b). However, this depends on whether the city can offer attractive jobs and living conditions. The quality of housing will become increasingly important for the future development of the city.
The demographic and socio-economic trends described above will have various effects on the future local housing market and housing requirements. In Liverpool, there are very diverse and complex patterns of communities and groups that need specific support. Dealing with multiple social problems is one of the main challenges for future housing strategies. In addition, the housing needs of younger and highly-qualified people, as well as transient households, must be met. Before these factors and Liverpool’s actual housing strategies are discussed, the specific local features and current characteristics of Liverpool’s housing situation must be outlined briefly. Table 4.5.3 gives a short overview of Liverpool’s dwelling stock by tenure, conditions, demand and vacancy: for 2001, 2003 and 2006. Table 4.5.3_Liverpool - Housing stock by tenure, conditions and demand in 2001, 2003 and 2006
2001
2003
2006
Total dwellings
206,308
207,054
209,500
Local Authority (LA) dwellings
35,859
21,606
17,379
Housing Stock
Registered Social Landlords (RSL) dwellings
32,065
44,870
43,250
Owner-occupied and private rented dwellings
134,629
148,871
148,871
Total unfit dwellings
17,947
18,791
21,506
Unfit LA dwellings
4,647
3,714
2,310
Unfit RSL dwellings
1,530
2,330
2,406
Unfit owner-occupied and private rented dwellings
11,578
11,653
16,790
Total number of dwellings classed as low demand
66,960
57,635
33,007
LA dwellings classed as low demand
14,269
8,210
3,481
RSL dwellings classed as low demand
7,691
4,425
1,017
Owner-occupied and private rented dwellings classed as low demand 45,000
45,000
28,509
Housing Conditions
Housing Demand
Housing Vacancy Vacant dwellings in total
18,666
15,692
13,880
Vacant LA dwellings
2,743
2,385
1,212
Vacant RSL dwellings
2,419
3,186
2,366
Vacant owner-occupied and private rented dwellings
11,979
9,027
10,302
Source: UK Office for National Statistics 2008a
Liverpoo
Housing market: facts and figures
66 67
First of all, Liverpool’s housing market is characterised by two different sectors. On the one hand, there is the social rented housing sector that belongs to the Local Authority and to Registered Social Landlords (i.e. non-profit independent housing organisations, registered with the Housing Corporation under The Housing Act 1996). On the other hand, there is the private housing sector (owner-occupied or rented). At the beginning of the new millennium (2001), there was an approximate 30:70 split between the social rented sector and the private (i.e. owner-occupied and private rental) sector, based on the number of the dwellings. Looking from a household perspective, the Census in 2001 showed that more than 30% of Liverpool’s households lived in a social rented dwelling, and 13% in a private rented dwelling (LCC 2001). Thus Liverpool has a large social rented housing sector, and scores below UK average on owner-occupancy. During recent years, the social rented housing sector has seen some fundamental changes. Whereas, until the early 1990’s, Liverpool City Council was the main supplier of rented accommodation in the city, all of Liverpool’s housing stock was transferred to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) between 1990 and 2008. These RSLs have become increasingly important as providers of housing (Table 4.5.3 above), both for those who cannot afford to buy or rent privately, and for those who need special housing. The extensive period of depopulation, as a result of the loss of manufacturing and industry since the 1970s, has led to a spiral of decline, especially in the inner city. Many residential districts in Liverpool, particularly the older inner-city neighbourhoods, which are dominated by pre-1919 terraced buildings, have been characterised by low demand, high vacancy levels and poor living conditions. The last Census in 2001 showed that the cross-tenure vacancy levels in the city exceeded 18,600 dwellings (9% of the housing stock), as a result of economic and population decline over the previous fifty years. Furthermore, an above-average proportion of all dwellings were classed as unfit (2006: Liverpool 10.3% of stock, England 4.2% of stock). This means that they fail to meet one or more of the standard criteria. The criteria include adequate lighting, heating and ventilation; an adequate supply of clean water; satisfactory facilities for cooking food; and a suitably-located toilet, and bath or shower (UK Office for National Statistics 2008a). This applied especially to the social rented housing market. In 2004, 43% of all social housing was not of a decent standard and did not meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing. Furthermore, these dwellings were not in a reasonable state of repair, had no adequate modern facilities and services, or did not provide a sufficient degree of thermal comfort (LCC 2006a). In 2001, 27% of all dwellings in Liverpool had no central heating (LCC 2001). A stock condition survey in 2004 calculated that it would cost £760 million over the next 30 years to bring all dwellings up to a decent standard. In addition, particularly in the social housing sector, there is a lack of housing which provides accessibility for people with mobility needs, including wheelchair users (LCC 2006a).
Liverpoo
Altogether, Liverpool is characterised by an unbalanced and highly polarised housing market. Many areas with empty houses coexist with high-demand residential areas. On the one hand, there are parts of the city which have
been experiencing low (and in some cases rapidly falling) prices, high turnover and increasing vacancy rates; on
the other hand there are new sub-markets which are thriving. Whereas, for example, the City Centre North has
suffered massive depopulation, with the loss of 80-90% of its residents over the past 50 years, other residential
districts have done far better: new homes have appeared in the city centre and at the waterfront, and other areas have developed steadily or have grown, as a result of an increasing concentration of younger and mobile age groups.
The living conditions in many residential areas in Liverpool are not in line with the city’s stated future objective of being a “Premier European City”. Liverpool City Council recognises the necessity of providing homes to match the aspirations of people in the 21st century. The aim is to encourage
inhabitants to remain in the city, to work there, and to play a role in improving the economy of the city. The Council stresses the importance of housing market restructuring and neighbourhood
renewal. In addition, it has underlined the need to create a “Living, Green and Sustainable City”, as well as good housing conditions, for successful future-orientated urban development. The City Council has therefore agreed on “Key Strategic Targets” to bring the entire housing stock up to a decent condition. Most of this improvement will take place in deprived areas and will address the needs of vulnerable households. One major aim is to reduce the vacancy levels across all types of housing from 9% to 5% by 2010 (LCC 2006a).
Info-box: Housing market research in Liverpool and Merseyside To make sure that its housing strategy is backed up by hard facts, Liverpool has had its own housing market research programme since 1999. The City Council worked with the University of Birmingham’s Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS) as well as with other consultants, and by 2003, a total of nine reports had been published. The studies focus on different thematic and geographic aspects, and are very important in designing and implementing Liverpool’s housing strategies (Nevin et al. 2001). In addition, in 2007, Fordham Research was commissioned to carry out a Housing Needs Assessment. This looks at the housing situation, housing preferences and future housing demands, and further supports the Council in its housing and planning strategies (LCC 2007c). For more information: http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Housing/Housing_research/index.asp.
Because housing markets do not operate solely within individual local authority boundaries, there is also a strategic housing and planning research programme for the whole Merseyside metropolitan area. Studies include the Housing Demand Study (2003), the Housing Capacity Study (2004), the Social Housing Demand Study (2005) and the Black and Other Racial Minorities Housing Needs & Aspiration Study (2005) (LCC 2006a). These reports provide an important basis for the creation of the Housing Strategy for the Liverpool City Region, which consists of thirteen local authorities (LCC 2007d). For more information: http://www.merseyside.org.uk/displaypage.asp?page=117.
68 69
programmes and action plans, for both housing sectors (social and private), and also for different housing zones in the city. In particular, the Housing Market Renewal Initiative (HMRI), focusing on the inner city, is very important for Liverpoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s housing restructuring activities. In this area, there are 150,000 inhabitants, and 76,000 properties. 80% of these properties are pre-1919 terraced houses, and most of them are characterised by a high level of unfitness and disrepair (LCC 2003, LCC 2007b). The aim is to restructure the housing market by the extensive clearance and redevelopment of whole areas. This involves the purchase of abandoned and unwanted empty homes. These will either be renovated and sold, or demolished and replaced with new homes, through public/private partnerships (e.g. Registered Social Landlords - RSLs), funded by a variety of sources. Another programme is the more socially orientated Local Neighbourhoods Renewal Strategy (LNRS). This deals with the transformation of the most deprived areas, in terms of closing the gap between the poorest and the most prosperous neighbourhoods. Five Neighbourhood Renewal Areas (NRAs) were identified, characterised by a faster population decline than the average for the city overall. In 2000, the Neighbourhood Renewal Areas covered 55% of Liverpoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total population. Now, these areas have their own Cluster Strategies and Neighbourhood Action Plans, to ensure more intensive and comprehensive support. The aim is to develop a robust social and economic infrastructure, with good quality health, education and transport, safe and high quality physical and social environments, and decent housing. In response to demographic change, it is a major challenge to deliver housing quality and choice to Liverpoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s diverse and complex pattern of communities and vulnerable groups. To achieve its aims, Liverpool City Council and its partners have created a number of special programmes. These include the Five Year Supporting People Programme, the Black and Racial Minority Housing Strategy, the Homelessness Strategy and the Fuel Poverty and Warm Home Strategy. In summary, during recent years, the condition of the housing in many parts of the city has improved significantly. But it is estimated that restructuring the entire housing market will take 15-20 years. Finally, it is worth noting that the housing restructuring and neighbour hood renewal process in Liverpool and Merseyside are monitored intensively (see info-box), for evaluation and further improvement.
9
The Key Strategic Targets mentioned above set the context for diversified housing objectives,
Information taken from Liverpool City Council 2006: Housing Strategy Statement 2005-2008. Liverpool (www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-66883.pdf, data as of 2002, date of last access 20/08/2008).
How does the City of Liverpool deal with demographic changes in the field of housing? 9
5_Comparisons, conclusions and recommendations 5.1_Comparative results The main constitutive characteristics of urban demographic change are: > ageing caused by low or “lowest-low fertility” and an increasing life expectancy > quantitatively: an increasing dominance of smaller households, especially a growing number of one-person households > qualitatively: the appearance of new household types, a fluidity in household formation and increasing housing mobility > migration flows in terms of international immigration and emigration as well as in-migration and out-migration to and from cities > urban shrinkage in terms of declining population: at different rates, depending on the context > multi-scale disparities (inner-EU, inter- and intraregional, inter- and intra-urban). In this study, we investigated these issues and their impact on housing for five European cities. All cities were described and evaluated according to the same design, with a specific focus on the indicators selected in advance. Table 5.1.1 provides an overview of the local specifics. For each city, a different pattern is seen. Quantitative population development differs from small growth to dramatic loss. In all cities, ageing and an increase in the number of households are ongoing. Regarding the average household size, all five cities are experiencing a downward trend. Ethnic diversity is increasing in Leipzig, Bologna and Liverpool, in terms of a growing number of foreign inhabitants and more ethnic groups living alongside each other. In Brno, the social and spatial integration of the Roma people is a specific issue. Housing shortage is a decisive feature in Łódź and Bologna, and is likely to increase further. In Brno, a housing shortage prevails to a certain degree in specific housing market segments. Suburbanisation continues in all the cities, but to varying extents: whereas in Brno and Bologna there is a growing tendency for suburbanisation, in Leipzig the process has slowed down. The last line of the table points to selected local specifics. Table 5.1.1_Comparison of the cities with regard to recent demographic and housing market trends
Leipzig Population size Ageing Number of households Average household size Ethnic diversity Housing shortage Suburbanisation
↗ ↑ ↑ ↘ ↑ - ↓
Brno
• ↑ ↑ ↘ ↗ ↘ ↑
Łódź
↓ ↑ ↑ ↘ - → →
Bologna
→ ↑ ↑ ↘ ↑ ↗ ↑
Specifics Housing, Housing market Extremely bad Need for vacancy, blocked by legal state of repair of appropriate demolition, conditions, exclusion the old building flats, reurbanisation of Roma minority stock, technical reurbanisation need for demolition
↑ ↓ decreasing, ↗ slightly increasing, ↘ slightly decreasing, → stable, no clear trend detectable, - feature not relevant •
Legend: increasing,
Liverpool
• ↗ ↑ ↘ ↑ →
High level unfitness and disrepair housing vacancy, highly polarised housing market
70 71
When looking at the cities in more detail, we can detect varying changes in the number of inhabitants in Leipzig, Brno and Łódź. The time span, the extent, and the reasons are different. Liverpool and Leipzig have been shrinking for decades; Brno saw a decline in population particularly in the 1990s; and Łódź has faced population decline since the late 1980s, but to a much higher extent than Brno. At present, Leipzig is experiencing population stabilisation caused by in-migration. In contrast, Brno is seeing an increasing birth rate and decreasing out-migration. In the case of Łódź, the emigration to other countries in Western Europe is important, but reliable data is not available. Regarding the average age of the population, all cities show a significant increase. The cities are therefore in line with the overall European trend. But in all five cities, the trend towards an older age profile is modified by a growing number of students, since all are important university towns. This rejuvenation is especially visible in selected areas which are favoured residential districts for students. In some cities this trend is strengthened by the in-migration of young families, couples and other types of household, for example, in Bologna and Leipzig. Inner-city residential areas, offering appropriate housing in reasonable condition, combined with urban amenities, are particularly characterised by the trend towards reurbanisation. All these different demographic trends, as well as the broader socio-economic processes, have contributed to a significant increase in the number of households: in all five cities this was mainly due to the growing number (and growing share) of oneperson households. In quantitative and qualitative terms, this transformation of household numbers, sizes and structures brings about important consequences for the local housing markets. In terms of international immigration, even though the main migration flows are into the capital cities and their metropolitan areas, for four out of our five case study cities, the impact of immigration is noticeable. In Leipzig, Bologna and Brno the picture varies. Leipzig faces a fast growth of ethnic communities but the absolute share of foreign nationals is still relatively low. In Bologna, legal and illegal immigrants arrive from across the Mediterranean Sea. In Brno, east European immigrants have enlarged and diversified the existing ethnic minorities. For Liverpool, ethnic diversity has always been an important issue, whereas in Łódź, it is not a topic. In all cities but Leipzig, housing shortage is a serious problem. In Brno the problem seems to have decreased in the past few years. In both Liverpool and Łódź, many residential buildings have had to be demolished, because they were in such a poor state of repair. But after demolition, new housing construction has started immediately. The Leipzig housing market is dominated by a surplus of supply that is likely to continue, even though in some sectors in the near future, supply may only just meet demand: housing in Leipzig is being demolished but is not being replaced; and because of the long-term negative population projections, the present plans for demolition will increase further. Thus, the phenomenon of ‘life-limited neighbourhoods’ will become a typical feature of the urban landscape, at least in some parts of Leipzig.
Taking into account broader regional developments, ongoing suburbanisation also needs to be highlighted. In three of the five cities, it plays an important role in urban development. Suburbanisation is still a significant process in Bologna, which traditionally has a predominance of owner-occupied housing. Suburbanisation is also still an important trend in Brno, the process started here at exactly the time that it slowed down in Leipzig, in 1999/2000. In Liverpool, suburbanisation has a long history and is currently stable. The extent of residential suburbanisation is determined by economic factors, and has to be tackled within a regional context. Moreover, demographic change will not stop at the city limits. Suburban areas will also face ageing and a reduction of household size in the future. Potentially, these demographic changes in terms of ageing and smaller households will be a limiting factor in further suburbanisation.
5.2_Conclusions On the basis of the comparative evaluation and interpretation of the data, the following general conclusions can be made: - The longevity (â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;persistenceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) of the physical structure of the cities (urban fabric, housing stock) contrasts with the rapid demographic changes in the urban population. There is therefore a permanent need for adaptation and reconstruction. - Households are a major, and so far under-estimated, driver for change in the housing market, in terms of demographics. The specific composition of households and their demands decide future requirements in the housing sector. - The downsizing of households in all age groups has consequences for the demand for housing as well as for housing-related services. - The prevailing demographic feature for European cities is ageing. Future older inhabitants may well have residential patterns that are different from those of todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s older people. Already today, older people are more mobile and more active in shaping their housing situations, and are less likely to move to special homes for the elderly than previous generations of 60+. - Dealing with the interrelationships between demographic change and housing requires multiscale approaches. The spatial aspects include entire cities and agglomerations as well as specific neighbourhoods and blocks. - Timing is also important because of the continuing emergence of new living and housing arrangements. Both households and individuals tend to spend less time in fixed types of living arrangements, and therefore the number and diversity of housing arrangements in a lifetime is increasing. As a result, housing needs differentiate, too.
72 73
- Suburbanisation processes depend on specific local circumstances in terms of timing and scope. Demographic change influences and limits the level of suburbanisation and its characteristics. As the costs of suburban living are likely to rise (energy, transport etc.), suburbia may, in the future, face outmigration and ageing and may become a less attractive place to live, with declining property values. - In the inner cities, in addition to traditional core families, there is a growing number of non-traditional household types. Their housing demands vary greatly. Families with dependent children, for example, are looking for housing which provides a combination of urban amenities and suburban housing qualities. - Regarding the temporal effects of demographic change, a sudden drop in the birth rate, or a strong out-migration during a certain period, can cause long-term demographic mismatches, even after several decades. - Diverse patterns of immigration and emigration, and of in-migration and out-migration, are affecting the housing market. According to the specific situation, the processes have different implications. For example, the socio-spatial integration of ethnic minorities (e. g. Roma people) needs particular consideration. - H ighlighting the demographic perspective does not mean that the socio-economic background of residents is being ignored. Also the specific local context has to be considered.
5.3_Recommendations for action Each aspect of demographic change, and, even more importantly, the interconnections and interrelationships between the various demographic processes, lead to radical consequences for the housing market. Furthermore, the infrastructures of whole districts or cities are affected. There is a need for architectural, spatial, supply-related, technical, social, cultural and fiscal adaptation, to deal with the changes. It is also important to recognise that demographic change can cause alterations in the usage densities for existing housing stock and services, as well as generating demand for new housing and services. Policies that aim to respond to demographic change are even more challenged by the increasing mobility and fluidity of households. New household types in particular are often only transitory users of urban space, and are likely to change their structure, size and place of residence quite frequently. Demographic change is not a phase that leads to new fixed structures, but an ever-ongoing process. One of the basic characteristics of the structures that are evolving, regardless of whether they are households, housing markets or residential patterns, is their flexibility and transience. This results in increasing social and demographic fragmentation in the urban space. In order to respond to these challenges and to enable these topics to attain a more prominent position on the European agenda, we provide recommendations, as follows, on three levels: for EU policies, for future research, and for cities.
Recommendations for EU policies 1_ A geing and its social consequences need more attention in European programmes and funding. Population ageing represents the key European mega-trend, also in the cities. Higher life expectancy leads to a growing group of old and very old people, both female and male. At the same time, family ties become weaker and family networks are spatially spread more widely, because of increasing residential mobility and migration processes. 2_ A n increased risk of poverty of older people is a Europe-wide matter which also has to be considered at the local level, in terms of quality of life and appropriate housing. But many cities are overstretched by this new challenge. EU support is vital, in terms of knowledge-exchange on best practices and also in terms of specific funding. 3_ Urban shrinkage needs to be accepted as one development trajectory just like urban growth. Already for many years, cities have been facing periods of population decline, in addition to eras of expansion. However, due to strong competition between cities, the growth paradigm is still the predominant pattern steering the urban development strategies. Consequently, shrinking cities now need even more attention and support for their specific demands in terms of policies and governance. 4_ The population decline in many European cities requires urban planning and policies to be rethought. Vacant housing in particular might well become an increasing phenomenon, since building activities depend largely on the interests of private investors and developers. In some places, vacant housing in suburbia will evolve as a new challenge. 5_ E U policies need to take an anticipating (â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;counter-cyclicalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) approach and tackle issues which are apparently not yet critical (e.g. ageing suburbia). In addition, the increased availability of demographic prognoses highlights the importance of paying attention to the long-term effects and possible future challenges. Here, the demographic debate converges with the challenge of sustainability.
Recommendations for future research The research on demographic change and its impacts on housing is still at an initial stage. To deal with the demographic challenges and to answer related questions on the European scale, detailed comparative and cross-cultural analyses and evaluations are necessary. These will contribute to the understanding of demographic change and housing, as well as providing added value for European cities. Nevertheless, it should be recognised that comparative studies need not necessarily be on a large scale, especially when new phenomena are to be explored in depth. More small- and medium-sized research projects, limited to a comparison of just 2-4 cases, are needed. Larger projects run the risk of being very costly, and do not necessarily provide a more thorough insight.
74 75
In our view, there is a need for more research into the following areas: 1_ A geing and housing: This topic has become prominent in recent research, but studies have mainly focused on the perspective of older people themselves and their perceived needs if they intend to age ‘in place’. Investigations from the perspective of cities and neighbourhoods are needed. Relevant research questions are for example: What new residential patterns will evolve? What conflicting priorities are to be expected and where? Will the next generation of older people have the same mobility as today’s generation? Also, more differentiated investigations of changing housing and service needs are necessary. 2_ N on-traditional household types: A deeper insight is needed into the development and behaviour of new household types and their impact on the housing market, not least for landlords and housing companies to ensure they can plan appropriately. Relevant research questions are for example: What types of households will occur and when? And what kind of housing mobility and socio-spatial patterns can be expected? 3_ H ousing flexibility: It will be important to understand in more detail the dynamics involved in matching housing availability to changing household types. Relevant research questions are for example: How flexible can the housing market be? How easily can available dwellings be adapted to meet changing demand driven by changing household arrangements? What are the expected implications for the urban fabric? 4_ C ity ‘perforation’ and ‘life-limited neighbourhoods’: New spatial structures in the cities as a result of rapid population change and changing housing needs should be considered as an opportunity to improve housing conditions for a range of household types and age groups. 5_ N ew migration patterns: Immigration and emigration together with in- and out-migration influence the local housing situation. More research is needed on patterns of seasonal, short-term and mid-term job-related migration, and the consequences of this. 6_ U nused potential of multi- and interdisciplinary approaches: If thematic lines of demographic change and housing are integrated with multi- or even interdisciplinary approaches, this would provide a more comprehensive picture of urban change. Relevant research topics relate, for example, to the relationship between demographic change and the labour market, demographic change and migration or demographic change and health care. 7_ D emographic criteria as part of EU decision-making: In making decisions on the distribution of EU structural funds, demographic criteria should be used alongside economic criteria. Research is needed to support decision-making processes.
Recommendations to the cities Until now, there have been relatively few opportunities for cities to learn from the experiences of others, in terms of dealing with demographic change and its impact on housing. This is partly due to the complexities of the demographic processes, with their interdependencies and changing dynamics, and partly because demographic change has only recently been given prominence. In future, there needs to be an increased sharing of information: both on good and poor practice examples, in terms of lessons learned. As concrete measures we propose: 1_ D evelopment of local monitoring systems: Local monitoring of housing markets, intra-urban mobility and changing household structures is needed to keep track of the dynamics of residential patterns as well as changing demand and supply. This will provide a more realistic basis for urban planning, including decision-making on social and technical infrastructure development. > Good practice example: Leipzig: annual housing monitoring since 2001. 2_ A ge mainstreaming: As with gender mainstreaming, awareness of the specific needs and circumstances of older people should become a matter of course, thereby encouraging all age groups live alongside each other with respect. Appropriate training and education of municipal staff will be necessary. (The authors came across the ‘age main-streaming’ phrase when looking at demographic change in the Czech Republic.) 3_ F ostering communication between cities and between neighbourhoods: The aim is to learn from the successes and failures of others (good practices and poor practices), and also to compare common aspects and differences between cities and neighbourhoods. > Good practice example: Cooperation between Brno and Utrecht in the field of housing 1999-2002 (Project “Housing, an integral approach” on the city scale and also for two selected districts of Brno). 4_ Building up local knowledge clusters: Knowledge clusters should be established in order to produce synergies in pursuing common urban development targets, and to keep track of exactly what is going on in each city (projects, initiatives etc.). Possible membership includes administrative bodies, scientists, NGO’s, private enterprises, etc. The success of a knowledge cluster depends on a clear and transparent definition of its aims and resources. 5_ C apitalising on the resources of publicly-financed scientific institutions: Close cooperation between the municipalities on the one hand and local universities and scientific institutes on the other, generates mutual benefits in terms of support for problem solving and development strategies. > Good practice example: Liverpool and Leipzig have both continuously cooperated with scientific institutions over the long term.
76 77
6_ D eliberate distinction between population growth and economic development: Successful economic development alone does not guarantee a stable or growing population. The question is: which amenities can cities with a poor economic base offer to inhabitants? Promoting the advantages of a city is essential to attracting in-migration and to retaining its inhabitants. > Good practice example: Liverpool: European Capital of Culture 2008 Łódź: reuse of industrial heritage for new housing (“Scheibler-Lofts”) 7_ Involving expert groups: An independent expert advisory board can give helpful advice and recommendations to the municipalities in terms of applying for EU funds as well as on how best to make effective and efficient use of the funds. Furthermore, they can develop proposals that deal with specific issues, independently of local political constraints or current priorities. These proposals can form part of innovative future development strategies. 8_ Use of the political arena to support immigrant communities: Formal political institutions are needed in order to raise public awareness of the problems of immigrants in their daily lives, and to achieve solutions and improvements. > Good practice example: Bologna: forum of foreign civic associations (immigrants "parliament")
All the above recommendations can be seen as concrete ways in which the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, an EU document passed in May 2007, can be implemented. The charter now needs live policies and actions. The aim of the Charter is to serve as a basis for steering urban policy and development. A key focus will be the challenges of demographic changes and their interdependencies with housing. In our view, demographic change is not just one factor among others, but a crucial framework condition of future societal and urban development. Therefore, broader strategies for sustainable development are needed, in order to tackle the effects of this multi-scale process, which depends on so many other socio-economic factors. In addition, demographic change impacts on economic processes as well as on social and ecological issues. Sustainable development of the housing sector needs to take into account new social and generational tensions, ageing processes and their consequences, new costs caused by the need to adapt the infrastructure, as well as the ecological and economic effects of vacant housing. It should also take into account possible future opportunities of these processes.
6_References and websites 6.1_References _Bierzyński, A., Węcławowicz, G. (2008): Łódź Data Analysis Report. Unpublished conDENSE project report. Warsaw, Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization. _Buzar, S., Odgen, P., Hall, R. (2005): Households matter: the quiet demography of urban transformation. In: Progress in Human Geography 29: 413-436. _Buzar, S., Hall, R., Ogden, P. (2007a): Beyond gentrification:
_Couch, C. (2003): Urban Regeneration in Liverpool. In: Couch, C., Fraser, C., S. Percy (Eds.): Urban Regeneration in Europe. Oxford: 34-55. _Couch, C., Karecha, K., Nuissl, H., D. Rink (2005): Decline and Sprawl: An Evolving Type of Urban Development – Observed in Liverpool and Leipzig. In: European Planning Studies 13, 117-136. _ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad] (2003): Sčítání lidu, domů a
the demographic reurbanization of Bologna. In:
bytů k 1.3.2001: obyvatelstvo, byty, domy a domác-nosti.
Environment and Planning A 39: 64-85.
Okres Brno-město. Praha.
_Buzar, S., Ogden, P., Hall, R., Haase, A., Kabisch, S., Steinführer, A. (2007b): Splintering urban populations: emergent landscapes of reurbanisation in four European cities. In: Urban Studies 44: 651-677. _Chlupová, D., Polešáková, M.; Rohrerová, L. (2008): Výsledky dotazníkové akce o změnách v obecním bytovém fondu
_ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad], Regional Office Brno (20022007): Statistical Yearbook of the Jihomoravský Region 2002-2007. Brno. _EC [European Commission] (2006): The demographic future of Europe – from challenge to opportunity. Luxem-bourg: Office for Official Publications of the
ve vybraných městech (2005, 2006). In: Urbanismus a
European Communities (http://ec.europa.eu/emploment_
územní rozvoj 11(1): 17-30.
social/publications/2007/ke7606057_en.pdf, date of last
_City of Brno, Municipality of Utrecht (2002): Walking the Tightrope. District Development Plans. An approach to structure the local development process. Brno, Utrecht. _CoE [Council of Europe] (2005): Recent Demographic Developments in Europe 2004. Strasbourg. _Comune di Bologna (2002): Rapporto sullo Stato dell’Ambiente. Bologna. _Comune di Bologna (2004): I cittadinini raccontano la vita nel quartiere. I casi studio della Bolognina e di San Donato. Bologna (unpublished project paper, Re Urban Mobil). _Comune di Bologna (2005a): Studi e ricerche sulla città, Le trasformazioni della populazione e delle famiglie, I dati in sintesi per la costruzione del plano strutturale (www. comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/psc_doc/trasf_pop. pdf, date of last access 20/08/2008). _Comune di Bologna (2005b): I dati in sintesi per la
access 26/08/2008). _EC [European Commission] (2007): Survey on perceptions of quality of life in 75 European cities (http://ec.europa.eu/ regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/urban/ survey062007_en.pdf, date of last access 26/05/2008). _EUROCITIES (2007): Analysis of EUROCITIES Demographic Change Survey 2007. (www.um.lublin.pl/um/index. php?t=210&id=56093&mode=a, date of last access 26/05/2008). _Gober, P. (1990): The Urban Demographic Landscape. In: Myers, D. (Ed.): Housing Demography. Linking Demographic Structure and Housing Markets. Madison, London: 232–248. _Großmann, K., Haase, A., Kabisch, S., Steinführer, A. (2008): Entering new grounds: Crossing the boundaries between demography and urban studies. Conference on Socio-
costruzione del Piano Strutrurale. 6. L’Evoluzione del
demographic change of European cities and its
partimonio abitativo (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/
spatial consequences, Leipzig, 14–16 April 2008. In:
piancont/psc_doc/trasf_abi.pdf, last date of access
Cities 25 (forthcoming; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
26/08/2008).
cities.2008.08.002).
_Comune di Bologna (2008g): Le tendenze demografiche
_Haase, A., Großmann, K., Kabisch, S., Steinführer, A. (2008):
a Bologna nel 2007 (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/
Städte im demographischen Wandel. Perspektivenwechsel
piancont/noterapide/popolazione/2006/PopolazioneBolo-
für Ostmitteleuropa? In: Osteuropa 58: 77-90.
gna31122006.pdf, date of last access 21/08/2008).
78 79
_Haase, A., Kabisch, S., Steinführer, A. (2006): Aufschwung
_Kabisch, S., Peter, A. (2008): Quartiere auf Zeit. In: Schnur,
der inneren Stadt in Europa? Reurbanisierung unter den
O., Gebhardt, D. (Eds.): Quartiersforschung in Theorie und
Bedingungen des demographischen Wandels im
Praxis. Wiesbaden: 301-318.
internationalen Vergleich. In: Europa Regional 14(4): 167-180. _Haase, A., Kabisch, S., Steinführer, A., Buzar, S., Hall, R., Ogden, P. E. (2005): Reurbanising the inner city: demographic and social future of the ‘Re Urban Mobil’ case study areas. Key issues of socio-demographic analyses,
_Kaczmarek, S. (1997): Spatial Differentiation of Housing Conditions and Urban Landscape in Łódź. In: Liszewski, S., Young, C. (Eds.): A Comparative Study of Łódź and Manchester: Geographies of European Cities in Transition. Łódź: 175-185. _Kohler, H. P., Billari, F. C., Ortega, J. A. (2002): The Emergence
evidence of reurbanisation, target groups and practice
of Lowest-Low Fertility in Europe during the 1990s.
recommendations. Centre for Environ-mental Research
In: Population and Development Review 28: 641-680.
Leipzig-Halle (today: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ) (www.re-urban.com/downloads/ WP3partB.pdf ).
_Kostelecký, T. (2000): Housing and Its Influence on the Development of Social Inequalities in the Post-Communist Czech Republic. In: Czech Sociological Review 8: 177–193.
_Haase, A., Steinführer, A., Kabisch, S., Gierczak, D. (2007):
_Kowalski, M., Śleszyński, P. (2006): Problems of Socio-Spatial
How inner-city housing and demographic change are
Development in Central Districts of Warsaw. In: Enyedi, G.,
intertwined in East-Central European cities. Comparative
Kovács, Z. (Eds.): Social Changes and Social Sustainability in
analyses in Polish and Czech cities for the transition period.
Historical Urban Centres. The Case of Central Europe. Pécs:
In: Komar, B., Kucharczyk-Brus, B. (Eds.): Housing and
107-126.
Environmental Conditions in Post-Communist Countries. Gliwice: 148-174. _Haase, D., Haase, A., Kabisch, S., Bischoff, P. (2008): Guidelines for the ‘Perfect Inner City’ - Discussing the Appropriateness of Monitoring Approaches for Reurbanisation. In: European Planning Studies 16: 10751100. _Herfert, G. (2007): Regionale Polarisierung der demographischen Entwicklung in Ostdeutschland – Gleichwertig-keit der Lebensverhältnisse? In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 65: 435–455. _Housing Statistics in the European Union 2004. Ed. by National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, Sweden, Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic.
_Kurek, S. (2008): Typologia starzenia się ludności Polski w ujęciu przestrzennym. Kraków. _LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2001): Census 2001. Key Statistics for Liverpool. Liverpool. (www.liverpool.gov.uk/ Images/tcm21-28081.pdf, date of last access 28/08/2008). _LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2003): HMRI. Housing Market Renewal Initiative. Liverpool Delivery Plan. Liverpool (www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-48948.pdf, date of last access 28/08/2008). _LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2006a): Housing Strategy Statement 2005-2008. Liverpool. (www.liverpool.gov.uk/ Images/tcm21-66883.pdf, data of the year 2002, date of last access 20/08/2008). _LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2006b): North Liverpool
Karlskrona, 2005. (www.eukn.org/binaries/eukn/
Economic Development Plan. Liverpool. (www.liverpool.
netherlands/research/2006/3/housing-statistics-in-the-
gov.uk/Images/tcm21-73307.pdf, date of last access
european-union-2004.pdf, date of last access 26/05/2008). _Jakóbczyk-Gryszkiewicz, J. (1997): Demographic
28/08/2008). _LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2007b): Housing Market
Characteristics of Łódź. In: Liszewski, S., Young, C. (Eds.):
Renewal in Liverpool. Annual Report 2006/07. Liverpool.
A Comparative Study of Łódź and Manchester:
(www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-120535.pdf, date of
Geographies of European Cities in Transition. Łódź: 111124. _Kaa, D. J. van de (1987): Europe’s second demographic transition. In: Population Bulletin 42: 1–57. _Kaa, D. J. van de (2004): Is the Second Demographic Transition a useful research concept. Questions and answers. In: Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2004: 4–10. _Kabisch, S. (2005): Empirical analyses on housing vacancy and urban shrinkage. In: Hürol, Y., Vestbro D. U., Wilkinson,
last access 28/08/2008). _LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2007c): Housing Needs Assessment. Final Draft. October 2007. Liverpool. _LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2007d): Liverpool City Region Housing Strategy. Liverpool. (www.liverpool.gov.uk/ Images/tcm21-103469.pdf, date of last access 28/08/2008). _LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2008a): Key Statistic Bulletin, Issue 4, 03/2008. Liverpool. (www.liverpool.gov.uk/ Images/tcm21-120488.pdf, date of last access 28/06/2008). _LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2008b): Liverpool Economic
N. (Eds.): Methodologies in Housing Research. Gateshead:
Briefing. A monitor of employment and wealth generation
188-205.
(1995-2005/6). Liverpool. (www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/ tcm21-120564.pdf, date of last access 22/08/08).
_Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities. Leipzig,
_Riley, R., Niżnik, A. M., Burdack, J. (1999): Łódź.
24 May 2007 (www.eu2007.de/en/News/download_docs/
Transformation einer altindustriellen Stadt in der
Mai/0524-AN/075DokumentLeipzigCharta.pdf; date of last
postsozialistischen Periode. In: Europa Regional 7(1): 22–31.
access: 22/10/2008). _Lux, M. (2000): The housing policy changes and housing expenditures in the Czech Republic. Prague. _Lux, M. (2001): History and Challenges of “Social” Rental Housing in the Czech Republic. In: Lux, M. (Ed.): Social Housing in Europe 2000. Prague: 33-48. _Maas, A. (2007): Schrumpfendes Brünn? Quantitative und Qualitative Analysen. Diplomarbeit. Universität Leipzig, Institut für Geographie. _Maier, K. (2001): Urbanisierung und Regionalisierung in der Tschechischen Republik in der
_Slany, K. (2007): Alternatywne formy życia małżeńskorodzinnego. In: Kojder, A. (Ed.): Jedna Polska? Dawne i nowe zróżnicowania społeczne. Kraków: 237-268. _Stadt Leipzig (1991a-2007a): Statistisches Jahrbuch 19912007. Leipzig. _Stadt Leipzig (2001c-2007c): Monitoringberichte 20012007. Leipzig. _Stadt Leipzig (2003b): Konzept der Seniorenarbeit Leipzig. 2. Altenhilfeplan 2003. Leipzig. _Stadt Leipzig (2004b): Zwischenbericht Grünau 2004. Leipzig.
Transformationsperiode. In: ARL (Hg.): Erscheinungen,
_Stadt Leipzig (2007b): Sozialreport 2007. Leipzig.
Wirkungen und Steuerungsmöglichkeiten von
_Stadt Leipzig (2007d): Entwicklungsstrategie Grünau
Suburbanisierungsprozessen. Ergebnisse eines
2020. Leipzig (www.leipzig.de/imperia/md/content/64_
internationalen Planerforums in Prag. Hannover: 61-67.
stadterneuerung/gruenau2020_entwicklungsstrategie_
_Markowski, T., Stawasz, D. (Eds.) (2007): Rewitalizacja a rozwój funkcji metropolitalnych miasta Łodzi. Łódź. _Misselwitz, P. (2004): Liverpool City Profile. In: Shrinking Cities. Working papers Manchester/Liverpool (www.shrinkingcities.com/fileadmin/shrink/downloads/pdfs/II.1_ Studies1.pdf, date of last access 22/08/2008). _MMB [Magistrat města Brna] (2001): Strategie bydlení města Brna. Brno. _MMB [Magistrat města Brna] (2002): Generel bydlení města Brna. Brno. _Nevin, B., Lee, P., L. Goodson, Groves, R., Hall, S., Murie, A., J. Phillimore (2001): Liverpool’s Housing Market Research Programme 1999/2001: A Review of the Main Findings and Policy Recommendations. Birmingham. _NiDi Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute
textendversion.pdf, date of last access 21/05/2008). _Stadt Leipzig (2007e): Strukturatlas Leipzig 2007. Leipzig. _Stadt Leipzig (2008): Statistischer Quartalbericht. 2/2008. Leipzig. _Statistisches Bundesamt (2003): Bevölkerung Deutschlands bis 2050. 10. koordinierte Bevölkerungsvoraus-berechnung. Presseexemplar. Wiesbaden. _Steinführer, A. (2004): Privatisierung auf Umwegen: Wohnungspolitik, Eigentumsstrukturen und Segmentation der Wohnungsmärkte in der Tschechischen Republik. In: Geographische Zeitschrift 92: 76-92. _Steinführer, A. (2006): The Urban Transition of Inner-City Areas Reconsidered (a German-Czech Comparison). In: Moravian Geographical Reports 14(1): 3–16. _Steinführer, A., Haase, A. (2007): Demographic Change as
(2007): Demographic Trends, Socio-Economic Impacts
Future Challenge for Cities in East Central Europe.
and Policy Implications in the European Union – 2007. DG
In: Geografiska Annaler B 89: 183-195.
"Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportuni-ties" Unit
_Steinführer, A., Haase, A. (2008): Flexible–inflexible: Socio-
E1 - Social and Demographic Analysis (http://ec.europa.
demographic, spatial and temporal dimensions of flat
eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_situation/2007_
sharing in Leipzig (Germany). Paper accepted for
exec_sum_demo.pdf, date of last access 26/05/2008).
GeoJournal (forthcoming).
_Obraniak, W. (1997): Depresja demograficzna w Łodzi. In: Przegląd Socjologiczny XLVI: 89–103. _Ogden, P. E., Hall, R. (2004): The second demographic
_Steinführer, A., Haase, A., Kabisch, S. (2008): Householdbased questionnaire surveys in European cities. Experiences from a cross-national research project. In:
transition, new household forms and the urban population
Grözinger, G., Matiaske, W., Spieß, C. K. (Eds.): Europe and
of France during the 1990s. In: Transactions of the Institute
its Regions: The Usage of European Regionalized Social
of British Geographers NS 29: 88-105.
Science Data. Newcastle: 253-270.
_Okólski, M. (2006): Płodność i rodzina w okresie
_VCRR MU [Výzkumné centrum regionálního rozvoje Ma-
transformacji. In: Wasilewski, J. (Ed.): Współczesne
sarykovy university] (2005): Vývojové tendence ve městě
społeczeństwo polskie. Warszawa: 103–143.
Brně: obyvatelstvo, trh práce, průmysl. Brno.
_Peter, A. (2006): Stadtquartiere auf Zeit in einer alternden Gesellschaft. Fallbeispiele Wolfen und Hoyerswerda. In: Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde 80: 275–293.
80 81
6.2_Websites _CEE Property Group (2008): Sytuacja na rynku mieszkaniowym w Polsce (from 12/09/2007) (www.pfpp.com.pl/content/ view/96/66/, date of last access 26/08/08). _Comune di Bologna (2007a): Dati statistici, Populazione, Struttura per sesso e per età, (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/ piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Struttura%20per%20sesso%20e%20per%20eta/ SessoxEtaBologna/200110.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). _Comune di Bologna (2007b): Indicatori socio-economici – dati per quartieri, zone ed aree statistiche (www.comune.bologna.it/ iperbole/piancont/Indicatori_socioeconomici/Indicatori%20socio%20economici_2007.pdf, date of last access 20/08/2008). _Comune di Bologna (2007c): Piano Strutturale Comunale, Quadro conoscitivo. Bologna. (http://informa.comune.bologna.it/ iperbole/media/files/qc_xpress_cd_1.pdf, date of last access 05/11/2008) _Comune di Bologna (2008a): Cittadini stranieri a Bologna (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/Stranieri/StudiStranieri/ Stranieri_aBo/StraneiriPresentazione2007.pdf, date of last access 20/08/2008). _Comune di Bologna (2008b): Le recenti tendenze di natalità a Bologna (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/ noterapide/popolazione/Natalita/Nati_Studio2000803.pdf, date of last access 20/08/2008). _Comune di Bologna (2008c): Scenari demografici 2006-2021 (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/scenari20062021/ index_scenari.html, date of last access 20/08/2008). _Comune di Bologna (2008d): Dati statistici, Populazione, Movimento della popolazione residente (www.comune. bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Movimento%20 Anagrafico/280004.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). _Comune di Bologna (2008e): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Divorzi (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/ Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Divorzi/290625.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). _Comune di Bologna (2008f ): Dati statistici, Istruzione, Universita (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/ Tavole/Istruzione/Universita/400013.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). _Comune di Bologna (2008h): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Matrimoni (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/ Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Matrimoni/290511.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). _Comune di Bologna (2008i): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Immigrati (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_ tendenze/Grafici/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Immigrati/G_280329_03.xls#Grafico!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). _Comune di Bologna (2008j): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Emigrati (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_ tendenze/Grafici/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Emigrati/G_280439_03.xls#Grafico!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). _Comune di Bologna (2008k): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Movimento della popolazione residente, saldo migratiorio (www. comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_tendenze/Grafici/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Movimento%20Anagrafico/G_280004_05.xls#Grafico!A1 date of last access 21/08/2008). _Comune di Bologna (2008l): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Famiglie (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/ Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Famiglie/FamiglieBologna/250110.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). _conDENSE Project, main page (www.condense-project.org, date of last access 22/08/2008). _ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad] (1991-2006): Demographic Yearbook (www.czso.cz/csu/2007edicniplan.nsf/engp/4018-07, date of last access 23/05/2008). _ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad] (2003): Sčítání lidu, domů a bytů 2001 - okres Brno-město 2001 (www.brno.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan. nsf/p/13-6224-03; date of last access 05/20/2008).
_ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad] (2006): Vývoj základních demografických ukazatelů ve vybraných městech ČR 1919 až 2005 (www2. czso.cz/csu/2006edicniplan.nsf/ publ/4018-06-1919_az_2005; date of last access 26/05/2008). _ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad] (2007): Demographic yearbook of selected towns in CR 1991-2006 (www.czso.cz/ csu/2007edicniplan.nsf/engp/4018-07, date of last access 20/05/2008). _ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad] (2008): Abecední seznam obcí k 01/01/2008 (www.brno.czso.cz/xb/redakce.nsf/i/mesta_a_obce, date of last access 20/05/2008). _Demografia in Cifre (http://demo.istat.it/pop2006/, date of last access 26/05/2008). _EuroStat, Haupttabellen, Allgemeine und Regionalstatistiken, Urban Audit (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_ pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=de&product=EU_MAIN_TREE&root=EU_ MAIN_TREE/tb/t_general/t_urb/tgs00015, data 2003-2006, date of last access 22/08/2008). _GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] (2004) Prognosa ludności na lata 2003-2030. Warszawa (www.stat.gov.pl/gus/45_648_PLK_ HTML.htm, date of last access 14/08/2008). _GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] (2008): Regional data bank by NUTs classification (www.stat.gov.pl/bdren_s/app/strona. indeks2, date of last access 25/08/2008). _HausHalten Association Leipzig: main page (www.haushalten-leipzig.de, date of last access 21/08/2008). _LWB [Leipziger Wohnungs- und Baugesellschaft mbH] (2007): Werbekampagne “Leipzig – Gegen Mangel im Alter” (www.lwb. de/index.php?session=0617517f84b5c0e2d91212204dbaf6e8&page=1152, date of last access 21/08/2008). _LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2007a): Population development 1961-2004 (www.liverpool.gov.uk/News/newsdetail_1352.asp, date of last access 09/17/2007). _Re Urban Mobil Project, main page (www.re-urban.com). _Scheibler Lofts, main page (www.uscheiblera.com.pl, date of last access 13/08/2008). _Statistical Yearbooks of the Southern Moravia Region 2001-2005 (www.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan.nsf/t/950046E430/$File/136201070311.xls, date of last access 15/08/2008). _Statistical Yearbook of the Southern Moravia Region (www.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan.nsf/kapitola/13-6201-07-2007-14, date of last access 05/07/2008). _Statistical Yearbook of the Southern Moravia Region (www.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan.nsf/t/950046E32B/$File/13-6201070104.xls, 31 December, date of last access 15/08/2008). _Statistisches Landesamt des Freistaates Sachsens (2007): Durchschnittsalter der Bevölkerung des Freistaates Sachsen am 31. Dezember 1990, 1995, 2000 und 2004 bis 2006 nach kreisfreien Städten und Landkreisen. (www.statistik.sachsen. de/21/02_02/02_02_02_tabelle.asp, date of last access 23/05/2008). _Urban Audit, main page (www.urbanaudit.org/rank.aspx, date of last access 23/05/2008). _Urząd Miasta Łódzi , information on revitalisation project Nawrot 7 (www.uml.lodz.pl/index.php?str=603 and www.uml.lodz.pl/ index.php?str=606, date of last access 13/08/2008). _Urząd Miasta Łódzi, Project PROREVITA, main page (www.prorevita.pl, date of last access 13/08/2008). _UK Office for National Statistics (1991-2008): Key population and vital statistics 1991-2006. London. (www.statistics.gov.uk/ StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=539, date id last access 15/08/2008). _UK Office for National Statistics (2008a): Neighbourhood Statistics (www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination, date of last access 22/08/2008). _VID [Vienna Institute of Demography], PRB [Population Reference Bureau] (2008): Tempo Effect and Adjusted TFR (www.oeaw. ac.at/vid/datasheet/box2.shtml, date of last access 27/08/08).
82 83
Census and annual population data
Addendu
7.1_Methodological remarks
At a high level, data capture and research methods are the main preconditions for achieving convincing
research results. It is essential to check the applicability and the content of traditional data sources (e.g. from censuses) and also their lack of data. Furthermore, the appropriateness and transparency of the methods used has to be guaranteed. As already mentioned in Chapter 3, the quality of the data used for each investigated city differs significantly, in terms of availability and reliability. To shed more light on this, the data sources for two of the case study cities, Leipzig and Brno, will be described in more detail. In both cities, annual population data are available. Usually such data is based on census updates. Yet, in the case of Leipzig, the last population census was almost 30 years ago, in 1981 (and the last housing census in 1995). So, the municipal statisticians face the demanding task of maintaining a variety the population data and keeping it up-to-date. In contrast, in the Czech Republic, the last census was carried out in 2001, as in most other European countries (also in Poland, Italy and the UK). Therefore, there is plenty of detailed demographic data for that particular year (especially on the number and structure of households). However, the figures have not been updated since then.
Census data provides a regular up-to-date inventory of the population and its age, household and educational composition at a certain moment in time. Census data, as a major source of demographic information, significantly differ from longitudinal studies, which involve repeated observations of the same variables over long periods of time,
often many decades. These are used for monitoring fertility, mortality, marriage or migration, which demographers also need in order to explain or forecast population trends. Census data are also needed on a regular basis, to verify and correct the data based on registration, which becomes less and less accurate over time. An appropriate interpretation of the period between two censuses is difficult, because general methodological questions cannot be answered by means of census data: for example whether changes between year t1 and t2 occurred in a linear way, and how to integrate probable ups and downs during the time interval covered. However, as annual small-scale and detailed information is not available in most countries, census data is indispensable for housing research and housing policies. As already stated above, this represents a problem for German cities, because the last census for western Germany took place in 1987, and for eastern Germany it was 1981, with a housing census in 1995. In terms of the quantitative dimension of urban demographic change in the inter-census periods, the population registers can be used for Leipzig (run by the municipality) and Brno (run by the regional statistical office). For Brno, there is a further population data source: this is available from the Ministry of Interior of the Czech Republic (ISEO register). However, there are significant differences between the two datasets, and it is unclear which one is correct.
84 85
These differences in data generation and availability are crucial, because in many cases they prohibit direct comparison. In consultations with experts, in particular regarding the different methodological ap-proaches, it seems that there are three possible reasons for the differences between the two sets of figures. Firstly, there may have been an undervaluation of the population
at home (and covered by ISEO). Thirdly, there was a problem with recording the exact numbers of foreigners. Among Czech experts, there is a broad debate about the ‘right’ statistical numbers, and about the possible causes for the large differences. In the case of Brno, the difference amounts to some 66,000 people by the end of 2006 (!); but there is no clear answer10. The problem is a structural one. Normally, in-migrants should register at their new address after moving (compulsory registration), but often they fail to register. This applies to most students and young professionals, who are often still registered at their parents’ home. Moreover, many out-migrants do not announce their change of residence either. Hence very often, in economically prosperous cities the number of inhabitants is underestimated; and in declining areas the population is overestimated. One sign of an underestimation in Brno is that the capacity of the sewage plant, which was designed for 500,000 people, is fully utilised! The general message is that population data should be treated with caution. Problems of data generation and comparability are also found at the European level. For example, even with such respected data collection projects as the Urban Audit, there are difficulties. This is due to the fact that the sources of the information in the audit are not available. To take just one example for Leipzig and Brno: the 2001 Urban Audit figure for Leipzig’s total population (493,052) is taken from the city’s statistical yearbook (and, thus, the population register). In contrast, the number for Brno (376,172) is taken from the Czech Republic’s 2001 census and is therefore based on a completely different methodology of data collection.
10
Secondly, there is an uncertain number of Czech citizens living abroad but still registered
We are grateful for the explanations and advice by Petr Klusáček (Institute for Geonics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Branch Brno) concerning these data issues.
in the last census 2001 (of some 130,000 to 150,000 people for the whole Czech Republic).
The Urban Audit is an initiative of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy at the Euro-pean Commission (DG Regio), in cooperation with EUROSTAT and national statistical offices. It provides reliable and comparable information on cities in the European Union and in EU candidate countries. The Urban Audit consists of demography and housing indicators which have been calculated by Eurostat. The Urban Audit is a response to the growing demand for an assessment of life in European towns and cities. It allows a comparison of towns and cities by regional, national and European agencies, as well as between the towns and cities themselves. For example, comparisons can be made in terms of geographical position within
Europe
(e.g.
central/peripheral;
North/South),
economic, economic activity, employment, public transport, and educational achievements. There is also scope for comparing disparities within towns and cities, which can be very useful, sometimes crucial, for deciding policy measures. Time coverage
Addendu
Urban Audit
Urban Audit data has been collected at five points in time: 1991 (a pilot project looking at only some of
the variables); 1996 (a further pilot with only some of the variables) and 2001 (full coverage); 2004 (the first full-scale European Urban Audit). 2006/7 saw the second full-scale Urban Audit. For further information: http://www.urbanaudit.org.
86 87
7.2_Different definitions of “household” As mentioned in the main report, the definitions of key indicators differ. For example, the term “household” varies across the five investigated European countries. The main source of these definitions (apart from the Czech Republic) is “Housing Statistics in the European Union”, 2004. To include the local understanding of the term ‘household’, national sources are also used. Germany A household consists of all persons who are living together and run a household i.e. who are financing their living costs jointly. With reference to the Federal Statistical Office, a household is defined as a living arrangement which can be a person living alone or a unit of persons living together and sharing a large part of their living costs (Statistisches Bundes¬amt 2003 and Housing Statistics 2004, 99). Czech Republic The Czech Statistical Office differentiates between three types of households: 1_ dwelling households (bytové domácnosti): created by all the people living in one dwelling: their number is therefore always identical with the number of dwellings; 2_ economic households (hospodařící domácnosti): created by people living together in one dwelling who share basic food expenditure, housing costs etc. (subtenants and their families create separate economic households); 3_ census households (cenzové domácnosti): created by people living together in one dwelling who are either blood relatives or other relations: four types exist: a) complete census household = complete “family” (with or without children); b) non-complete census household = non-complete family; c) non-family census household; d) census house-holds of individuals. The number of census households is larger than the number of economic households; in turn, the number of economic households is higher than the number of dwelling households. Data on these types of households are only collected and generated in the censuses. In this report, household data always refers to census households: this is also common usage in the Czech Republic’s statistics (ČSÚ 2003)
Addendu
Italy
The term ‘household’ is not used in Italy. The common term is family (famiglia). This is understood to be a group of persons linked by bonds of marriage, kinship, affinity,
adoption, guardianship or affection: they live together in the same dwelling and therefore have their habitual residence in the same municipality (even if they are not yet registered
in that municipality’s register of inhabitants). A family may also consist of only one person (Housing Statistics 2004, 99). In Bologna, two household definitions are used: 1_ famiglia which means people living together in a social and economic unit;
2_ ménage which relates to housing arrangements and which might comprise one or more famiglia that live in or share one dwelling (Comune di Bologna 2007c). Poland
In Poland a private household has two possible definitions:
1. a one-person household i.e. a person who lives alone in a separate
housing unit or who occupies, as a lodger, a separate room (or rooms) of a housing unit but does not join with any of the other occupants
of the housing unit to form part of a multi-person household as defined below;
2. a multi-person household i.e. a group of two or more persons
who combine to occupy the whole or part of a housing unit and to provide themselves with food and possibly other essentials for living. Members of the group may pool their incomes to a greater or lesser extent (Housing Statistics 2004, 100). United Kingdom A household is defined as a person living alone or a group of people who either share at least one meal a day or share the living accommodation. The determining factors are meals and accommodation-sharing. The relationship between the people in the household is irrelevant (Housing Statistics 2004, 100).
88 89
7.3_Tables a_Table of general features of the investigated cities, 2001
Leipzig
Brno
Lodz
Bologna
Liverpool
493,0524
373,2721
786,52613
378,3565
439,2008
Births
3,7734
3,2401
5,56111
2,7739
4,9158
Deaths
5,382
3,963
11
10,841
4,840
5,1758
Natural balance
-1,6094
-7231
-5,2811
-2,0679
-2608
1,657.113
1,635.513
2,671.713
2,632.813
3,923.913
Average age
43.22
41.53
41.1 12
47.6 5
not available
Average household size
1.81
2.263
2.2413
2.0913
2.2710
272,10013
151,7243
351,95213
185,56921
187,86510
Share of one-person households 45.1
33.6
35.4
41.4
36.910
Marriages
1,3334
2,0591
3,5196
1,28817
not available
Divorces
902
1,284
1,801
45516
not available
POPULATION Total population
4
1
9
Population density total resident population per km²
Total number of households
13
13
4
13
1
13
6
21
In-migrants
21,365
3,180
3,794
11,346
15,3008
Out-migrants
4
19,912
5,931
4,515
10,447
18,4008
Net migration
1,4534
-2,7511
-72111
-6220
-3,2008
Life expectancy at birth
77.9
76.2
72.3
80.8
not available
317,43913
162,17613
329,7196
194,86222
not available
41.44
18.013
21.213
40.213
not available
17.313
3.213
4.713
3.0 – 4.023
9.014
1,07413
not available
40413
not available
1,421213
1,47313
not available
35713
not available
99213
4
13
1 1
13
11 11
13
18 19
13
HOUSING Dwellings Average housing space per person (m2) Vacancy rate (Share of empty dwellings in %) Average price per m2 for an apartment (€) Average price per m2 for a house (€)
TRAINING and EDUCATION Total number of students
32,954
45,3311
94,3537
99,13015
37,74810
Unemployment rate
19.74
8.6 1
22.113
4.513
11.113
ENVIRONMENT Proportion of the area in green space
49.813
31.913
8.013
1.113
28.513
Sources: see below
The main data source for the target year 2001 is Urban Audit with the reference number 13. The other footnotes describe data which could not be found in Urban Audit but are taken directly from national or municipal statistical data sources. In addition we checked the data found in Urban Audit with respect to their origins (see methodological remarks).
Addendu
1_ Source: CSO [Czech Statistical Office] (1991-2006): Demographic Yearbook (http://www.czso.cz/csu/2007edicniplan.nsf/ engp/4018-07, date of last access 23/05/2008). 2_Source: Stadt Leipzig (2007b): Sozialreport 2007. Leipzig. 3_Source: CSO [Czech Statistical Office], Census 2001. 4_Source: Stadt Leipzig (1991a-2007a): Statistical Yearbooks 1991-2007. Leipzig. 5_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2007a): Dati statistici, Populazione, Struttura per sesso e per età, (http://www.comune.bologna. it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Struttura%20per%20sesso%20 e%20per%20eta/SessoxEtaBologna/200110.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). 6_Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] Bank Danych Regionalnych. 7_Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] Bank Danych Regionalnych (all study systems without post-diploma and doctorate studies). 8_ Source: UK Office for National Statistics (1991-2008): Key population and vital statistics 1991-2006. London. (http://www. statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=539, date of last access 15/08/2008). 9_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008d): Dati statistici, Populazione, Movimento della popolazione residente (http://www. comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Movimento%20Anagrafico/280004.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). 10_ Source: LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2001): Census 2001. Key Statistics for Liverpool. Liverpool. (http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/ Images/tcm21-28081.pdf, date of last access 28/08/2008, total number of full time students and schoolchildren). 11_ Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] (http://www.stat.gov.pl/bdren_s/app/strona.indeks, date of last access 12/08/08). 12_ Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] 2006, authors’ calculation; methodological remark: The mean age could be, in fact, a bit higher since for the age group 85+ there are bit higher since for the only aggregate data. 13_Source: Urban Audit (http://www.urbanaudit.org/rank.aspx, date of last access 15/08/2008). 14_ Source: LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2006a): Housing Strategy Statement 2005-2008. Liverpool. (http://www.liverpool.gov. uk/Images/tcm21-66883.pdf, data of the year 2002, date of last access 20/08/2008). 15_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008f ): Dati statistici, Istruzione, Universita (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Istruzione/Universita/400013.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). 16_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008e): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Divorzi, (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Divorzi/290625.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). 17_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008h): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Matrimoni (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Matrimoni/290511.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). 18_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008i): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Immigrati. http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_tendenze/Grafici/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Immigrati/G_280329_03.xls#Grafico!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). 19_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008j): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Emigrati (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_tendenze/Grafici/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Emigrati/G_280439_03.xls#Grafico!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). 20_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008k): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Movimento della popolazione residente, saldo migratiorio (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_tendenze/Grafici/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Movimento%20Anagrafico/G_280004_05.xls#Grafico!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). 21_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008l): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Familgie http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Famiglie/FamiglieBologna/250110.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). 22_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2007b): Indicatori socio-economici – dati per quartieri, zone ed aree statistiche (http://www. comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/Indicatori_socioeconomici/Indicatori%20socio%20economici_2007.pdf, date of last access 20/08/2008). 23_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2005c): I dati in sintesi per la costruzione del Piano Strutrurale. 6. L’Evoluzione del partimonio abitativo. (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/psc_doc/trasf_abi.pdf, date of last access 26/08/2008).
90 91
b_Table of general features of the investigated cities, 2006
Leipzig
Brno
Łódź
Bologna
Liverpool
POPULATION Total population
506,6002
366,3841
760,2514
373,02624
436,1008
(31/12)
(01/07)
(31/12)
(31/12)
(30/06)
Births
4,4102
4,0561
5,91621
3,02124
5,49622
Deaths
5,422
1
3,833
10,842
4,855
4,61322
Natural balance
-1,0122
2231
-4,92621
-1,834 24
88122
297.62
1,592.99
2,582.417
Average age
43.95
41.81
42.717
47.77
Average household size
1.72
not available
2.2018
1.93
2
Population density - total resident population per km²
298,700
Total number of households
2
Share of one-person households 52.22
21
24
not available not available not available not available
not available not available
193,555
not available
not available not available
46.727
not available
24
27
Marriages
2
1,282
2,149
3,790
1,109
not available
Divorces
8972
1,0271
2,24419
36525
not available
1
4
In-migrants
23,969
6,943
4,070
13,228
15,40022
Out-migrants
19,0302
7,2431
5,43916
11,96024
17,90022
Net migration
2
4,939
-300
-1,369
1,117
-2,50022
Life expectancy at birth
79.32
74.010
72.318
2
1
1
16
16
24
24
not available not available
HOUSING Dwellings Average housing space per person (m2) Vacancy rate (Share of empty dwellings in %) Average price per m2 for an apartment (€) Average price per m2 for a house (€)
315,0002
165,36611
332,69218
not available
41.22
not available
22.66
12.72
not available not available not available
209,34415
not available not available 7.123
not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available
TRAINING and EDUCATION Total number of students Unemployment rate
37,1362
76,07912
118,41420
96,21726
not available
18.7
7.9
11.7
not available
26.38
2
13
21
ENVIRONMENT Proportion of the area in green space Sources: see below
53.52
30.014
not available not available not available
Addendu
1_ Source: CSO [Czech Statistical Office] (1991-2006): Demographic Yearbook (http://www.czso.cz/csu/2007edicniplan.nsf/ engp/4018-07, date of last access 23/05/2008). 2_Source: Stadt Leipzig (1991a-2007a): Statistical Yearbook 1999-2007. Leipzig. 3_Source: Demografia in Cifre (http://demo.istat.it/pop2006/, and authors estimation, data from 1/1/2006, date of last access 26/05/2008). 4_Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] (http://stat.gov.pl and authors estimation, date of last access 26/05/2008). 5_ Source: Statistisches Landesamt des Freistaates Sachsen (2007): Durchschnittsalter der Bevölkerung des Freistaates Sachsen am 31. Dezember 1990, 1995, 2000 und 2004 bis 2006 nach kreisfreien Städten und Landkreisen. (http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/21/02_02/02_02_02_tabelle.asp, date of last access 05/23/2008). 6_ Source: EuroStat, Haupttabellen, Allgemeine und Regionalstatistiken, Urban Audit (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/ page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=de&product=EU_MAIN_ TREE&root=EU_MAIN_TREE/tb/t_general/t_urb/tgs00015, data 2003-2006, date of last access 22/08/2008). 7_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2007a): Dati statistici, Populazione, Struttura per sesso e per età, (http://www.comune.bologna. it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Struttura%20per%20sesso%20 e%20per%20eta/SessoxEtaBologna/200110.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). 8_ Source: LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2008a): Key Statistic Bulletin, Issue 4, 03/2008. Liverpool. (http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/ Images/tcm21-120488.pdf, date of last access 28/06/2008). 9_ Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Southern Moravia Region (http://www.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan.nsf/kapitola/13-6201-072007-14, date of last access 05/07/2008). 10_ Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Southern Moravia Region, Years 2001-2005 (http://www.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan.nsf/ t/950046E430/$File/13-6201070311.xls, date of last access 15/08/2008). 11_Source: MMB [Magistrat města Brna] Property department. 12_Source: MMB [Magistrat města Brna] OUPR survey, academic year 2006/2007. 13_ Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Southern Moravia Region, 31 December, (http://www.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan.nsf/ t/950046E32B/$File/13-6201070104.xls, date of last access 15/08/2008). 14_Source: our estimation resulting from the share of the forest land in total city area (230 km²). 15_Source: statistical data from Karen Canty" <Karen.Canty@liverpool.gov.uk>, 10/07/2008. 16_ Source: Bierzyński calculation based on census data of central statistical office, data from 2005, GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny]. 17_Source: Bierzyński calculation based on BDR, GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny]. 18_ Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] Podstawowe informacje z narodowego spisu ludności i mieszkań oraz powszechnego spisu rolnego 2002 w gminach, 2003. 19_Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] Bank Danych Regionalnych. 20_Source: Informatorium US w Łodzi. 21_Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] (http://www.stat.gov.pl/bdren_s/app/strona.indeks, date of last access 12/08/2008). 22_ Source: UK Office for National Statistics (1991-2008): Key population and vital statistics 1991-2006. London. (http://www. statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=539, date of last access 15/08/2008). 23_ Source: LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2006a): Housing Strategy Statement 2005-2008. Liverpool. (http://www.liverpool.gov. uk/Images/tcm21-66883.pdf, data of the year 2002, date of last access 20/08/2008). 24_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008g): Le tendenze demografiche a Bologna nel 2007. (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/noterapide/popolazione/2006/PopolazioneBologna31122006.pdf, date of last access 21/08/2008). 25_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008e): Dati statistici, Populatzione, Divorzi, (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Divorzi/290625.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). 26_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008f ): Dati statistici, Istruzione, Universita (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Istruzione/Universita/400013.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). 27_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008l): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Familgie http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Famiglie/FamiglieBologna/250110.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).
92 93
c_Comparison of age classes 2001 and 2006
Leipzig
Brno
Łódź
Bologna
Liverpool
Age classes 2001 0-14
12.41
14.12
12.43
9.54
18.73
15-64
70.6
70.2
71.1
64.2
66.03
65 and older
17.01
15.72
16.53
26.34
15.33
17.61
20.12
17.43
14.84
28.43
24.11
22.42
23.23
40.94
23.23
1.41
1.12
1.33
2.84
0.83
Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64) Age dependency rate (65+/15-64) Index of ageing (65+/0-14)
1
2
3
4
Age classes 2006 0-14
9.91
12.92
11.35
10.34
17.86
15-64
68.31
70.52
71.85
62.64
67.36
65 and older
21.8
16.5
16.8
27.0
15.06
14.51
18.32
15.85
16.54
26.56
(65+/15-64)
31.91
23.52
23.45
43.24
22.26
Index of ageing (65+/0-14)
2.21
1.32
1.55
2.64
0.86
1
2
5
4
Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64) Age dependency rate
1_Source: Stadt Leipzig (2002-2007): Statistisches Jahrbuch 1999-2007. Leipzig. 2_ Source: CSO [Czech Statistical Office] (1991-2006): Demographic Yearbook (www.czso.cz/csu/2007edicniplan.nsf/engp/4018-07, date of last access 23/05/2008). 3_Source: Urban Audit (www.urbanaudit.org/rank.aspx, date of last access 23/05/2008). 4_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2007a): Dati statistici, Populazione, Struttura per sesso e per età, (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/ dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Struttura%20per%20sesso%20e%20per%20eta/SessoxEtaBologna/200110. xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008). 5_Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] (http://stat.gov.pl and authors estimation, date of last access 26/05/2008). 6_ Source: UK Office for National Statistics (1991-2008): Key population and vital statistics 1991-2006. London. (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=539, date of last access 18/08/2008).
This publication is supported by the European Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (2007-2013). This programme was established to financially support the implementation of the objectives of the European Union in the employment and social affairs area, as set out in the Social Agenda, and thereby contribute to the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy goals in these fields. The seven-year Programme targets all stakeholders who can help shape the development of appropriate and effective employment and social legislation and policies, across the EU-27, EFTA and EU candidate and pre-candidate countries. To that effect, PROGRESS purports at: ·p roviding analysis and policy advice on employment, social solidarity and gender equality policy areas; ·m onitoring and reporting on the implementation of EU legislation and policies in employment, social solidarity and gender equality policy areas; ·p romoting policy transfer, learning and support among Member States on EU objectives and priorities; and · relaying the views of the stakeholders and society at large. For more information see: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/progress/index_en.html
«The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission»
1, Square de Mee没s B -1000 Brussels tel +32-2-552.0888 fax +32-2-552.0889 www.eurocities.eu info@eurocities.eu
GraphicDesign: pierreyvesjurdant c/o NAos design 漏 EUROCITIES - November 2008