The Urban Vision of Two Metropolises: From Budapest to Athens
Charalampos Vamvakas BME University of Technology Budapest 2016
Contents 1. Intoduction..............................................................................................................p.1 2. Development History...............................................................................................p.2-5 3. Urban Structure and Social Composition.................................................................p.5-11 3.1. Budapest...........................................................................................................p.5-8 3.2 Athens................................................................................................................p.9-11 4. The Urban Vision......................................................................................................p.12-15 Bibliography.............................................................................................................p.16
1. Introduction
1
Urban researchers very often compare various cities around the world, in an effort to comprehend, decode and perceive the different urban structures, the factors and the reasons that led to them and maybe finally improve the present or envision the future of them. Comparison as a tool offers the chance to realize or to investigate how and to what extend different historical, social and political backgrounds affect the various urban issues and to what different treatments of these topics results into. Leaving temporarily in Budapest but having grown up in Athens, I decided to use exactly the tool of comparison for my research, as a method already implemented successfully multiple times in the past by the urban researchers. Athens and Budapest are two contemporary european metropolises. The first one located at a key location at the Mediterranean Sea, meanwhile the second one is in the heart of central Europe. Developed in different periods with different political and social backgrounds, the two cities have acquired their own unique character and special aspects through the years. Budapest has been compared as far as its development and urban characteristics are concerned with various metropolises around the world by Alain Bertaud, as a characteristic eastern European city. Kenneth Frampton on the other hand has written an extended text in his book “Modern Architecture� about Athens, as a peculiar example of modern city expressing the values of modernism in a unique way not corresponding to any other city in the world. Athens is currently undergoing a severe economic crisis. This crisis has drastically affected the social and political aspects of the city as well. In this unstable and uncertain environment that crisis has created, an opportunity for rethinking and reforming the economic, social and political values has emerged. Through this opportunity, Athens could redefine its agitated identity, recondition the social-economic relations of the inhabitants with the city and find its place again in the global cultural map. Budapest on the other hand, even though it still faces important economic difficulties, seems to have found its general orientation in the european or global perspective and also to have posed the basic development policies for the future. Through this research, I will try to analyze the two metropolises’ development history, urban structure and social composition in order to finally focus in their urban vision and the factors that shape it.
2. Development History Budapest developed as a major city mainly after the industrial revolution during the 19th century and the population kept increasing until the last decades. Budapest was developed following the logic of all the big centers of industrial activity around Europe at that time, based on urban planning including boulevards, squares and strict regulations. The main building typology was the tenement building widespread in the rest big urban centers of the period. These were built by private investors who bought a plot in the city center and made a profitable investment in the rapidly growing city. They lived in the elegant apartments in the front section while renting the rest small apartments facing the courtyard to the lower social classes. After 1860’s-70’s when the building investment was on a boom, significant alterations of the densely inhabited urban web were planned by the urban planners of the city like the constructions of important boulevards and infrastructure. As the land value was increasing there were even cases that investors constructed new higher buildings replacing their existing ones enhancing even more the high density. Until 1930 the urbanization of the main core of Budapest was complete and the structure of the city center acquired its final form. After the World War 2 when the socialist regime came, serious changes to the pattern of the city and its development and the ownership mechanisms occurred. As economic management was done almost exclusively by the state of the country, so did the development issues of the city as they are highly connected to it. The new developments to host the new wave of urbanization were focused on the huge estates built at the outskirts of the main core of the city, leaving the city center invariant though. These developments were financed most of the cases (at the beginning totally) by the state and not by private investors. The location of the housing estates was decided by the state as well. In the case of Budapest this was mainly in the periphery of the city, further than the city center leaving the zone between as it was (mainly old industrial facilities). What was also regulated by the state was the inflow of the population and the industrial growth leading to the administrative limitation of the development. Furthermore there was administrative housing consumption (one unit per family). Consequently the development of the city is highly controlled and regulated. That did not mean that significant increase of the population did not happen though, since the state had a severe industrialization strategy. As far as the city center is concerned, all the housing stock in
Budapest around 1900
2
Developments during socialist regime
3
the city center built before the war kept deteriorating as a result of not important investment on it because of the state financing focusing on the development of the housing estates. After the political changes during the 1990s the city faced the transitional phases from the socialist political-economical structure to the western capitalistic model. The main process affecting the urban topics here, was the mass privatization of the previously state owned companies and housing stock. This process happened in two phases. First the state passed the ownership to the corresponding municipalities. Afterwards it was decided to privatize the housing units and give it to the sitting tenants in a really low symbolic price (15% of the market value). There were some exceptions where the municipality could keep some properties like buildings of monumental value or some others to implement rehabilitation processes. Nonetheless almost all of the tenants bought their previously state-owned apartments since to most of them it was the first stable investment they could do after to socialist regime.
Urbanization of Athens begun only after it was decided to establish the capital of the new greek state there in 1834. Unlike the big urban centers in Europe, Athens does not meet significant industrialization, leading to a slow pace of urban transforming. Urban planners carried out the first plans based on the European standards with spacious boulevards and squares. These plans were implemented up to one extend though since there was still no need for rapid urbanization and the owners of the plots being intersected by the new plans were intensively opposing. All the housing activity was based on private developments of family houses or small apartment buildings hosting again the extended family. Bigger apartment buildings developed by some wealthy investors after 1910’s, were rarely the case and they were focused to the higher social classes as they offered prestigious apartments. Significant urbanization of Athens began only after WW2 with its peak at 1970’s. Urbanization wave was too big without any investor or the state able to invest enough for huge housing projects that would offer a solution (as developed in most European countries). Consequently a new law was implied to encourage small investments all over the city that would cover the housing needs of the increasing flow of people coming from the rural areas. According to this law the investor was given the chance to take some of the small plots in a block (usually not more than 4) and build the typical greek apartment building called polykatoikia ( πολυκατοικία). Instead of buying the plots though, he could just offer one or two of the newly built apartments to the previous owners of the plots and sell the rest of the apartments to the crowds waiting for an accommodation solution. That resulted to the uncontrolled development of the city since it was so easy for investors to build more and more polykatoikias on the one hand and the tempted plot owners wiling to agree to get a new apartment instead of the old decayed house which was the case most of the times in Athens. The negotiation was straight between the investor and the plot owners. In general we notice that Athens most of the cases was developing faster than the urban planners could catch up with. The state did not really interfere though, in an effort to keep the building investment at a peak as a mean of short term revival of the economy, without most of the times having a long term development plan of the city. The lack of the urban planning led to the really compact and extensive city center of Athens. Dominated by the typical apartment building, this homogeneous city center lacks zoning and urban vision as far as the functions and the character is concerned. Most of this central web was totally built up
Athens plan 1840
Athens around 1900
4
Athens 1960
5
until 1980. After 1980 and with the economic situation getting more prosperous in Greece, the development of the suburbs came. Suburbs develop immediately after the extended city core. These are consisted usually of smaller apartment buildings close to the city and then they gradually blend with detached family buildings as distancing from the center, following the building restrictions. Since there is the intense movement to the suburbs the population of the city center starts to decline. This gap is soon filled in by the big incoming immigration wave (mainly from the Balkan countries) after 1990’s. Furthermore at this time the central part of the city starts to get neglected and degraded. A series of urban transformations came during 2000’s ahead of the Olympic Games of 2004. Including in these were some improvement of some boulevards, extension of the metro lines, refurbishment of important public spaces and infrastructure of the city, as well as restoration and rehabilitation of some parts of the historical sites in the city center. All these changes brought some vividness again to the city and solved some traffic congestion problems. Nevertheless the Mediterranean metropolis is still undergoing the problems caused by its uncontrolled development described before.
3. Urban Structure and Social Composition 3.1 Budapest Population of urban area: 1,7 million Density of urban area: 6000 people/km2 Density of city center: 23830 people/km2 In a general point of view there are three main zones that can be distinguished in Budapest: - the city core, mainly with residential, commercial and administrative functions - the former inner towns, built up with the traditional form of tenement houses. -the transitional belt, with a very mixed use of space, consisting of succeeding sectors of residential and industrial character - the former industrial areas of Budapest between the inner towns and the suburbs - the outer zone, characteristically garden towns (green zones) and residential estates, mixed with some industry - the former suburbs and the Buda Hills with their special geographic situation. Budapest zones
As the goal of the specific research is to examine the urban vision of the two cities, the study of urban structure will mainly focus on the city center as it strategically represents the whole city in which 28% of the population lives today. The main core of the city center was totally urbanized until the 1930’s, meaning that almost every available plot was built. Since investors were trying to construct buildings offering as many apartments for rent as possible, the tenement building became the dominant typology of the city, taking advantage of the regulations allowing up to 95% coverage of the plot. The typical Budapest-type residential building is similar in essence to those of Berlin or Vienna: wings are arranged around an inner court. As mentioned before the street wing with its spacious, prestigious flats serves the private landlord and the wealthier tenants, while the court wings, having their windows only on the access corridor, are for lower class people. Regulations corresponded with the interest of those who provided the building capital that resulted in a fast, “American type� expansion to the rapidly growing demand of petty bourgeoisie and the low income immigrant workers. The
6
last ones willing to accommodate themselves even in the small dark apartments facing the courtyard, encouraging even more the specific typology to flourish all over the main city core. At the final stage of urbanization of the city center that meant nearly 1200 blocks of mainly the typical tenement house described before, offering approximately 300000 flats. The average block was usually divided to plots from 400 m2 to 1800 m2. Analysis of a typical block in the city center consisted of the dominant building typology “tenement building�: Building Footprint Ratio: 0,88 m2/m2 Floorspace Ratio: 3,5 m2/m2 Flats per Hectare: 326 Density measured from a central point
Budapest typical tenement building
7
As we can notice the tenement building typology in combination with its dominance in every average block, leads to the densely inhabited city core of Budapest. This densely inhabited city center is characterized by a quite homogeneous residential web in its entirety. Few new developments were implemented in this web after the political changes of 1990’s like some big shopping malls and some rehabilitation projects including new built apartment buildings. Commercial and administrative functions are mainly concentrated to the most historic part of the city, together with the more prestigious residential tenement buildings and they extend towards every direction of the city until they gradually stop. Most of the administrative functions are hosted in historical buildings that have been built for this cause. Commercial is hosted on the ground floors of the tenement buildings and in the few developments made mainly after the political changes. As there were only few infill sites and since also the majority of flats in the better quality multistory buildings were bought by the sitting making the conversion into a different function almost impossible, the new office building developments were mainly focused in outer parts of the city center. As mentioned before each of the typical tenement building present significant social mix, originating from the way of their development since the wealthy owners lived together with the lower social groups. Discrimination between the different groups was visible though. The owner was living in the first or second floor to the most prestigious and ornamented apartment while the rest of the wealthy tenants were living to the front section of the building
as well in the other floors. The front section had usually a separate staircase and wider corridors to separate from the wings organized around the courtyard where the smaller and darker apartments were. Moreover these apartments were sharing one common bathroom per floor next to the secondary staircase of the building. The cohabitation of the different social groups was the case even in the areas of higher prestige of the city ( at the boulevards and squares ). The second allocation of the various social groups was between the different areas of the city. Lower classes were concentrated to the southeast part of the city closer to the more unhospitable industrial areas ( e.g. stinking industries ). Each building separately in these areas is still characterized by a softer social mix analyzed above, but all the inhabitants together belong usually to lower classes than the more prestigious areas. This social mix of high and low classes was mitigated only after the political changes and surprisingly not affected by the socialist regime itself. Since the housing market was free, suburbanization of the high classes to the prestigious areas begun. On the other hand lower classes that were able to buy and resell on market price their flats and move to cheapest areas either within Budapest or outside of it.
Population density today in the city center
Directions of development the higher status areas m2/inhabitant per m2 of the flat (dots represent the social status)
floorspace ratio per quality (dots represent the social status)
8
3.2 Athens Population: 3,1 million Density: 7500 people/km2 Density of city center: 17165 people/km2
Typical athenian urban block
9
Mainly as a result of the lack of zoning and extensive urban planning, Athens has developed from the city center towards every direction to the surroundings. The same logic was followed by the port area that used to be a different city in the 19th century, until it was totally unified with Athens. Consequently the whole city’s structure is a relatively compact homogeneous urban “carpet� expanding until it meets the physical obstacles around the city ( the sea to the south and the tree mountains in each of the other directions ). In general the homogeneity of this carpet gets interrupted by the archeological sites, the small historical part of the city, some ex-industrial areas to the west, some physical elements like hills in various parts of the city and the few parks. Most of the built mass, however, follows the building restrictions defined by the urban planners. Consequently between the wider central area and the port the dominant apartment building are up to 7 storeys high and the number of storeys declines as the expands to its limits. For once more we will focus on the city center of Athens in which 22% of the population lives today. Polykatoikia, as referred before is the dominant building typology. Through the peculiar procedure that it was developed, polykatoikia usually is built in the place of formerly 1,2 or 3 plots of the typical Athenian block. The size of these plots derives from 60 m2 to 180 m2 (fact that made the urban planning an even more difficult task since the whole city was shredded expanse). The plot owners gained one or maybe two apartments of the building, meanwhile the rest of the apartments were usually sold out by the investor. As a result and since the condominium law was already implemented in 1920, these buildings are always multi-owned which usually leads to some management problems of the building. Polykatoikia usually follows the maximum volume of the building regulations. The building regulations are the same for all the central area. According to them, no building can exceed 8 storeys height and a 75-87% of plot coverage ( depending if the it is a corner plot or not ). Moreover the buildings have to follow the front line of the plot leaving the unbuilt space to the back
part. Furthermore, the last storeys after the third or fourth (depending on the site characteristics ) have to set back from the previous in order to let more sunlight to reach the street level. The size of the typical apartments varies from one to three bedrooms and they include kitchen, bathroom and most of the times satisfy the contemporary commodities. Since these buildings are not that big, most of the apartments have rooms both in the front and back section of the building. Apartments on the top floors are more privileged as they have a spacious balcony, get more sunlight and offer a nice view to the surroundings. The backyards most of the times lacks of function or usage as a result of its small area and darkness. All the backyards together make up the weirdly shaped inner vacuity of the typical blocks, an uninviting and neglected by the inhabitants space. Analysis of a typical block in the city center consisted of the dominant building typology “polykatoikia�: Building Footprint Ratio: 0,79 m2/m2 Floorspace Ratio: 4,4 m2/m2 Flats per Hectare: 582 Through the analysis of a typical athenian block, we can notice that the density offer by polykatoikia is considerably high. The population density is not corresponding to the noteworthy density of the built mass though. That is the result of inhabitants sometimes owning more than one apartment as a mean of stable investment or moving to the suburbs. In addition census data is sometimes inaccurate because of defective data after the big immigration flow into the city. Apart from the polykatoikias, the city center is consisted by the historical part of Athens, dating back to the 19th century, which includes usually family detached houses. Commercial and administrative functions are next to the historical part and are hosted usually by adapted and maybe partially altered polykatoikias. Smaller commercial and recreational activity takes place at the ground floor of various apartment buildings around the city. Inhabitants of polykatoikias usually belong to a wide range of the middle social-economic class. Since a big part of the economic activity in Greece is based on small and middle size industrial and commercial companies, supported by the state after the war again as a short 10
Population economic status (blue is higher)
Immigrant population density in the city center
11
term plan of recovery or the economic situation. This led to the swelling of the middle class which was also the main customer of polykatoikia. Consequently throughout the city center there is considerable social mix, yet most of the times limited to this wide middle class. There are some parts where higher or lower social status can be spotted as well. The higher status areas seem to be connected with the natural characteristics of the landscape like the hills that offer views and also some kind of distinction. Another important high status area is the historical part and all the surrounding places. On the other hand, lower classes live to the areas towards the West part closer to the ex-industrial facilities. In every area, however the main building typology is the same with only the quality of the construction and materials affected by the corresponding status profile of the area. Furthermore, we can often notice some difference in the status between the inhabitants of the privileged apartments at the top floors and the ones living in the lower apartments. After the immigration wave, some important changes came to the social map of the city center. Immigrants in Athens were blended with the locals almost in every part of the city except the high status areas, described above. This addition of the multicultural parts to the population of Athens was feasible through the combination of two facts. Firstly, the more wealthy locals had already started moving to the more prosperous suburbs. Moreover, the housing surplus (especially the not privileged apartments in the lower floors) was usually rented out to the immigrants.
Percentage of immigrant population per floor
4. The Urban Vision After the political changes in 1991, Budapest was found on a sudden transition from the socialist regime to the western capitalist world. Apart from the serious social and economic problems that this transition induced in almost every field, Budapest had to face an additional challenge as well, define its position and role firstly in Europe and then in the wider world. Soon enough after settling down with the basic problems described before, clear objectives concerning the development of the city are set. These objectives are highly focused on the restructuring of the economy mainly by attracting foreign investors, as well as keeping the local workforce dynamic and ready to cope with the new developments. This will happen through a series of important improvements in the urban web, increasing the livability, sustainability and attractiveness of the city. Consequently, community life and the city as a workplace will be strengthened .Furthermore, Budapest will enhance and promote its strong geopolitical position through regional, national and international cooperation and involve more participants to the social-economic processes. In the last years, series of these improvements have been implemented already. The public transport system shrunk after the political changes, meanwhile private cars became more popular. Nevertheless, during the last years it was drastically improved, turning into a really efficient and frequent transport system. An extended pedestrianization (including the addition of greenery) is still happening in the city center, creating a pedestrian-friendly environment connecting most of the main sights and attractions of the city. Public spaces are also renewed, sometimes in a contemporary innovative design relief the occupied almost exclusively by historic buildings urban web. Nevertheless, the population density in the city center is slowly decreasing, not only because of the compact urban web not offering sufficient greenery and free space but mainly due to the extensive decay of some buildings as a result of the multi-ownership described before. Meanwhile the first problem is partly confronted through the expansion and renovation of public spaces, the second one creates a peculiar urban situation. In some advanced decayed buildings in the city center though, a remarkable phenomenon has occurred. This phenomenon that could be characterized as “inhabitation of the ruins� is the reutilization of them in their current state to create recreational spaces promoting not only entertainment but cultural events as well, with the special decayed atmo-
12
sphere. In addition to these, a series of participatory projects like the creation of gardens and events spaces in abandoned plots is happening, involving the inhabitants in the formation of the city. As the city center is really compact and dense, all these processes find fertile ground, boosting the vividness, mobility, creativity and multiple cultural activity of the whole city. Meanwhile further than the city center, these aspects are not advanced, since most the population is concentrated to the housing estates areas developed in the outer remote areas relatively far from the city center. To create a stronger connection between them and the city center, future developments are encouraged to be built in the transitional zone between (since most of it is consisted of semi-abandoned industrial facilities), spreading the cultural and creative activity from the city core to the multiple high density centers around it. Moreover, future developments around the Danube (the most important landscape element of the city) are scheduled in order to turn this linear connection into a continuous network of sport, recreation, nature and culture running through the whole urban web. We could safely conclude that Budapest has set the basic development pillars and define its urban character and its evolution for the future. Even though many problems as economic difficulties or administrative obstacles are still to be confronted, the city is stably consolidating its place among the rest significant european urban centers. Budapest often seems to get inspired by these european centers and imitate their development logic. Nevertheless, its peculiar and unique urban aspects are most of the times preserved or highlighted, boosting the character of the city. Athens has followed a very different development motive until the last years of crisis when its development froze and serious problems in every aspect of urban life occurred. Through the last decades of its remarkably fast development, Athens had no or only short term plans and policies for it, as previously examined. Therefore, since development of the city has seized, it is probably the first time through its recent history that there is an important opportunity for redefining the values, rethinking the processes and reshaping the way of life, all these to determine the new coefficients of urban life and future development of the city. The regulatory plans and ideas implemented in the last years seem to take advantage of this frozen state of the city. Suggestions for exploiting the existing built mass of the city and interfering with the existing urban web making not only massive improvements in it but even 13
reforming its dominant units (the unit of polykatoikia) from the beginning redefining the urban structure in its entirety. A regulatory plan proposed in 2011, suggested to reverse the so far explosive development of the city into an implosive one, meaning that the new developments should focus on the city center that could gain again its dense form, this time with a strong priority on its livability and sustainability, through pedestrianization and radical renewal of public spaces. Apart from the city center, some interventions to the wider urban web were proposed under the basic condition that the limits of this city should be preserved in their current state. These include rehabilitation of the seafront and the green areas near the limits, with a strong connection to the city center, though pedestrian friendly boulevards, boosting for once more the importance of the city core. Other proposals suggested the reformation of polykatoikias and the urban blocks consisted of them by taking advantage of their flexible frame that can be easily converted and adjust to new functions. Through innovative ways it was suggested to even push up public functions and greenery, leading to a more creative expression of the already embossed greek urban scenery. Some more proposals thought of massive intervention promoting greenery or soft rural activities in the few blank or semi-abandoned areas around the city center, offering a break to the inseparable urban “carpet”. Except from the urban planners and architects that made the series of proposals, mainly through studying and decoding the current urban situation, inhabitants’ perception about it has also been remarkably affected. Inhabitants started to retain their desires that they used to satisfy in the prosperous period before the crisis and turn their attention, out of necessity and realization, to the existing assets including the urban environment. The “implosion” suggested previously by the planners, now meets the inhabitants’ will as well. Athenians have started recognize the significance of the public space as a community and recreation space, activities that so far took place mainly in private cafeterias. Participatory projects as the transformation of neglected plots into public squares happened in the last years. On the other hand self-organized and volunteers organize events, activities or walks in various public spaces around the city highlighting and taking advantage of charming corners of the city. The severe economic crisis seems to be the chance for the city to reborn. Planners and architects have found a fertile ground to experiment and propose radical changes that could enhance Athens’ identity. This identity will then be supported by the inhabitants themselves 14
who for the first time seem to have gained “urban consciousness�. In this environment where architecture and urban planning could communicate with its residents, are set the pillars for defining what is the role of the Mediterranean metropolis in national and international perspective.
15
Bibliography Budapest: - Urban Models and Public-Private Partnership (editor Remo Dalla Longa), chapter: LargeScale Restructuring Processes in the Urban Space of Budapest (writer Gábor Locsmándi) - Residential Environments in Budapest: Classification and Potentials for their renewal (writer Gábor Locsmándi) - The urban development of Budapest and the EU accession course (tutor Iván Tosics) - Budapest, transformations of the city, series of lectures (tutor Árpád Szabó) - Guidebook for an urban ecological tour on housing in the city of Budapest (writers Árpád Szabó and Gábor Locsmándi) - Budapest 2030, Long-term urban development concept (responsible publisher Sándor Finta)
Athens: - Seven books of urban planning (writer Dimitris Karydis) - Urban Planning, for a sustainable development of urban environment (writer Athanasios Aravantinos) - Made in Athens, Greek Participation in 13th Interantional Architecture Exhibition (curators Panos Dragonas and Anna Skiada) - The Evolving Urban Form: Athens (writer Wendell Cox)
16