Urban diversity and the production of public space in Budapest
Abstract
Public spaces are spaces for representation of individuals, social groups, ideologies, values, cultures. At the same time, public spaces are commodifi ed and "disneyfied" in capitalism, thus, the creation of a homogeneous, "desirable" spatial form and use of public space is often intended. Therefore, their production is characterised by constant rivalries and struggles and causes social confl icts. In addition, the production of public spaces in post-socialism has distinct development paths which is often characterised by contradicting traditions and objectives regarding the spatial form and the everyday practices taking place there. These contradictions create conflicts between various individuals, social groups, actors of urban policies etc. The
aim of the paper is to investigate how urban social diversity is (re)presented in the public spaces of the 8th district of Budapest, Józsefváros. Which groups and values are more visible than others? How do local people use public spaces? The research is based on the content analysis of policy documents and interviews conducted with local residents of Józsefváros - one of the most diverse districts of Budapest. According to our results, the fragmented nature of the local society is refl ected in the use of public space: diversity is present between the public spaces and not within them. Furthermore, some of the recent developments support the homogenisation of values and behaviours in public spaces.
References
Atkinson, R. and Kintrea, K. 2000. Owner-occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts. Policy and Politics 28. (1): 93-108. Crossref
Belina, B. 2007. From disciplining to dislocation: area bans in recent urban policing in Germany. European Urban and Regional Studies 14. (4): 321-336. Crossref
Bende, Cs. and Nagy, Gy. 2016. Közösségi kertek Szegeden - Empirikus vizsgálatok és esettanulmányok (Communitiy gardens in Szeged - an empirical research and case studies). Földrajzi Közlemények 140. (1): 55-72.
Blokland, T. and Nast, J. 2014. From public familiarity to comfort zone: the relevance of absent ties for belonging in Berlin's mixed neighbourhoods. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38. (4): 1142-1159. Crossref
Blokland, T. and Van Eijk, G. 2010. Do people who like diversity practice diversity in neighbourhood life? Neighbourhood use and the social networks of 'diversity-seekers' in a mixed neighbourhood in the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36. (2): 313-332. Crossref
Bodnár, J. 2015. Reclaiming public space. Urban Studies 52. (12): 2090-2104. Crossref
Boschman, S. 2012. Residential Segregation and Interethnic Contact in the Netherlands. Urban Studies 49. (2): 353-367. Crossref
Calhoun, C. ed. 1992. Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MIT Press, 510 p.
Cantle, T. 2012. Interculturalism: For the era of globalisation, cohesion and diversity. Political Insight 3. (3): 38-41. Crossref
Castells, M. 2009. The Power of Identity: The Information Age - Economy, Society, and Culture: 2. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell, 584 p.
Curley, A.M. 2010. Relocating the poor: social capital and neighbourhood resources. Journal of Urban Affairs 32. (1): 79-103. Crossref
Czirfusz, M., Horváth, V., Jelinek, Cs., PÓsfai, Zs. and SzabÓ, L. 2015. Gentrifi cation and rescaling urban governance in Budapest-Józsefváros. Intersections 1. (4): 55-77. Crossref
Delanty, G. 2012. A cosmopolitan approach to the explanation of social change: social mechanisms, processes, modernity. Sociological Review 60. (2): 333-354. Crossref
Dudás, G. and Pernyész, P. 2011. A globális városok térkapcsolatának vizsgálata légi közlekedési adatok felhasználásával (The analysis of spatial connections between global cities using air traffic data). Tér és Társadalom 25. (4): 81-105.
Eraydin, A., Tasan-Kok, T. and Vranken, J. 2010. Diversity matt ers: immigrant entrepreneurship and contribution of different forms of social integration in economic performance of cities. European Planning Studies 18. (4): 521-543. Crossref
Erőss, Á. 2011. Contested spaces. Ethnic visibility in the city of Oradea. In Critical spaces: contemporary perspectives in urban, spatial and landscape studies. Ed.: Calcatinge, A., Münster, LIT Verlag, 69-87.
Erőss, Á., Tátrai, P. and Kocsis, K. 2009. Mapping of symbolic occupation of urban space: the case of the street-names in Oradea. In Descriptio Transylvaniae: International Conference on History of Cartography and Historical Geography. Eds.: Csiki, B. and Bartos-Elekes, Zs., Cluj-Napoca, Cholnoky Jenő Geographic Society-Babeş-Bolyai University, Faculty of Geography, 133-143.
Forrest, R. and Kearns, A. 2001. Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies 38. (12): 2125-2143. Crossref
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of Self in everyday life. London, Penguin Books, 251 p.
Habermas, J. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Polity, 328 p.
Harvey, D. 2005. The political economy of public space. In The Politics of Public Space. Eds.: Low, S. and Smith, N. New York, Routledge, 17-34.
Hickman, P. 2010. Neighbourhood Infrastructure, 'Third Places' and Patt erns of Social Interaction. Research Paper No. 4. Sheffield, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Hallam University, 46 p.
Kovács, Z. 1998. Ghettoization or gentrification? Postsocialist scenarios for Budapest. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 13. (1): 63-81. Crossref
Kovács, Z. 2006. Social and Economic Transformation of Historical Districts in Budapest. In Social changes and social sustainability in historical urban centres. Eds.: Enyedi, Gy. and Kovács, Z., Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies HAS, 39-64.
Kovács, Z. 2009. Social and economic transformation of historical neighbourhoods in Budapest. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie / Journal of Economic and Social Geography 100. (4): 399-416.
Ladányi, J. 2014. Changing patterns of social and ethnic residential segregation in Budapest. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 13. (4): 555-572. Crossref
Lees, L. 2008. Gentrification and social mixing: towards an inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Studies 45. (12): 2449-2470. Crossref
Lefebvre, H. 1991. The production of space. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 464 p.
Mitchell, D. 1995. The end of public space? People's Park, defi nitions of the public, and democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85. (1): 108-133.
Mitchell, D. 2003. The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. New York, The Guilford Press, 270 p.
Mitchell, D. and Staehli, A. 2009. Public space. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Vol. 8. Eds.: Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N., Amsterdam, Elsevier, 511-516. Crossref
Myerson, D.L. 2001. Sustaining urban mixed-income communities: the role of community facilities. A land use policy report prepared for the Urban Land Institute. Chicago, Charles H. Shaw Annual Forum on Urban Community Issues, 12 p.
Nathan, M. 2006. The economics of super-diversity: Findings from British cities, 2001-2006. SERC Discussion Paper 68. London, SERC, 49 p.
Nielsen, S. 2013. Public Space - A Concept under Negotiation. In A Space Called Public. Eds.: Elomgren, M. and Dragset, I., KÖln, Walther König Verlag, 228-248.
Oldenburg, R. and Brissett, D. 1982. The third place. Qualitative Sociology 5. (4): 265-284. Crossref
Peters, K. and De Haan, H. 2011. Everyday spaces of inter-ethnic interaction: the meaning of urban public spaces in the Netherlands. Leisure/Loisir 35. (2): 169-190.
Putnam, R. 2007. E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies 30. (2): 137-174. Crossref
Schmid, K., Al Ramiah, A. and Hewstone, M. 2014. Neighbourhood ethnic diversity and trust: the role of intergroup contact and perceived threat. Psychological Science 25. (3): 665-674. Crossref
Sennett, R. 2002. The Fall of Public Man. London, Penguin, 416 p.
Sheller, M. and Urry, J. 2006. The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38. (2): 207-226. Crossref
Syrett, S. and Sepulveda, L. 2011. Realising diversity dividend: Population diversity and economic development. Environment and Planning A. 43. (2): 487-504. Crossref
Szemző, H. and Tosics, I. 2005. Hungary. In Urban Issues and Urban Policies in the New EU Countries. Eds.: Van Kempen, R., Vermeulen, M. and Baan, A., Ashgate, Euricur, 37-60.
Tasan-Kok, T., Van Kempen, R., Raco, M. and Bolt, G. 2014. Towards hyper-diversified European cities: a critical literature review. Utrecht, Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences, 85 p.
Tosics, I. 2005. The post-socialist Budapest: the invasion of market forces and the att empts of public leadership. In Transformation of Cities in Central and Eastern Europe: Towards Globalization. Eds.: Hamilton, F.E.I., Dimitrowska-Andrews, K. and Pichler-Milanovic, N., Tokyo, UN University Press, 248-280.
Tosics, I. 2006. Spatial restructuring in post-socialist Budapest. In The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe. Space, Institutions and Policy. Eds.: Tsenkova, S. and Nedović-Budić, Z., Heidelberg, Physica- Verlag, 131-150. Crossref
Udvarhelyi, É.T. 2014. "If we don't push homeless people out, we will end up being pushed out by them": The criminalization of homelessness as state strategy in Hungary. Antipode 46. (3): 816-834. Crossref
Urry, J. 2007. Mobilities. Cambridge, Polity, 336 p.
Van Beckhoven, E. and Van Kempen, R. 2003. Social effects of urban restructuring: a case study in Amsterdam and Utrecht, the Netherlands. Housing Studies 18. (6): 853-875. Crossref
Van Kempen, R. and Wissink, B. 2014. Between spaces and flows: towards a new agenda for neighbourhood research in an age of mobility. Geografiska Annaler: Series B. 96. (2): 95-108. Crossref
Vedrédi, K. 2014. Social perception of public space developments - The case of Saint Stephen Square, Szeged, Hungary. European Journal of Geography 5. (3): 60-72.
Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30. (6): 1024-1054. Crossref
Wiesemann, L. 2012. Public spaces, social interaction and the negotiation of difference. MMG Working Paper 12-08. Göttingen, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, 26 p.
Wissink, B. and Hazelzet, A. 2012. Social networks in 'neighbourhood Tokyo'. Urban Studies 49. (7): 1527-1548. Crossref
Zukin, S. 1991. Landscapes of power: from Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley, University of California Press, 338 p.
Zukin, S. 1995. The cultures of cities. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 338 p.
Zukin, S. 1998. Urban lifestyles: diversity and standardisation in spaces of consumption. Urban Studies 35. (5-6): 825-839. Crossref
OTHER SOURCES
Hungarian Central Statistical Office (2011). Population Census 2011 - Detailed tables. Accessed: 2 October 2015.
Józsefváros. Integrált Városfejlesztési Stratégia (2008, 2012). Budapest, Rév8 Józsefvárosi Rehabilitációs és Városfejlesztési ZRt. Accessed: 4 August 2016.
Pest-budapest Konzorcium 2015. Józsefváros Integrált Településfejlesztési Stratégia - Megalapozó vizsgálat (Józsefváros Integrated Urban Development Strategy - Baseline Report). Budapest Főváros VIII. kerület Józsefvárosi Önkormányzat, Budapest.
Józsefváros Zöldfelület Fenntartási és Környezetvédelmi Koncepciója, 2014. (Green Area Sustainability and Environmental Protection Concept of Józsefváros, 2014). Budapest Főváros VIII. kerület Józsefvárosi Önkormányzat, Budapest.
1997. évi LXXVIII. törvény az épített környezet alakításáról és védelméről (Act LXXVIII. of 1997 on the development and protection of built environment). Accessed: 5 August 2016
1996. évi XXI. törvény a területfejlesztésről és a területrendezésről (Act XXI. of 1996 on regional development and planning). Accessed at 5 August 2016
2012. évi II. törvény a szabálysértésekről, a szabálysértési eljárásról és a szabálysértési nyilvántartási rendszerről (Act II. of 2012 on Misdemeanours). Accessed: 09 December 2013.
Magyarország alaptörvénye 2011.(The Fundamental Law of Hungary, 2011). Accessed: 6 September 2013.
Józsefvárosban tilos kukázni! (Rummaging is forbidden in Józsefváros!) Accessed: 20 May 2016
Copyright (c) 2016 Lajos Boros, Szabolcs Fabula, Dániel Horváth, Zoltán Kovács
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
