This study examines the changes undergone by urban centers within Greater Budapest’s extension area, which was annexed to the capital of Hungary in 1950, and which is, with minor modifications, equivalent to the outer zone today. The article compares the development methods of two different political systems: state socialism (i.e., the communist regime) between 1950 and 1990, and post-socialist capitalism after 1990. Over a longer period, the urban development of Budapest has made a long but circular journey from decentralized to a decentralized–disjointed socio-spatial development system, passing through a centrally-planned communist era between 1945 and 1990. Nevertheless, closer examination of this process reveals that several paradigm shifts took place in the design methodology, which was strongly influenced by socio-economic changes. These shifts, layered upon the inherited structure, as well as the neglect or preference of different systems, caused great differences in the development histories of centers on the outskirts. Therefore, we have set up a development typology for the centers on the outskirts by summarizing the planning history at the city level. Based on how well the center was able to incorporate itself into the larger metropolis since 1950, we have distinguished the following development models: the metropolized, the transcript, the rehabilitated, and the urban village model. This typology is extended to include new urban centers that formed during state socialism (between 1950 and 1990) and post-socialist capitalism (since 1990).

No abstract

Food markets provide a continuous urban function at the centre of urban quarters, and their structures are an important component of the local identity. Therefore, they could be crucial in the complex renewal process of a mass housing neighbourhood, indeed. The paper focuses on the contemporary markets within Budapest’s three large housing estates, in Újpest Centre, Békásmegyer, and Havanna, opened in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. The research is based not only on the study of relevant literature, design documents, publications, fieldwork, but also on a survey conducted with three well-recognized Hungarian architects in order to understand and compare their views on the complex context beyond the urban and architectural solutions. The questions focused on the crucial or determining factors of the design process such as the budget, the main players, references, physical context (built and natural), social context, program, and technology. These public projects of varied scale were used for exemplary contemporary food market case studies from Budapest, in which the people involved took into consideration the existing social and material problems and the potential of the heritage of modern mass housing neighbourhoods.

The study is based on the re-combination or synthesis of international scientific literature, and the definition of the notions center, and sub-center. A conceptual-structural framework of socio-spatial characteristics of centers (and sub-centers) is set up, these factors are essential elements of making, maintaining, and rehabilitating a city: Market and Competition; Node and Pole; Faith; Power; Security; Mixture; and Identity. In an evaluation matrix, the meta-physical characteristics (that are the determining factors of the physical attributes) of these archetypes are drawn. Based on famous theorists, three types of city forms are distinguished: the “traditional / organic”, the “modern / planned”, and the “contemporary / disjointed” ones. We argue that the historical, theoretical-conceptual background of the triple division is comprehensible. However, this trichotomy lacks some essential elements, “measurable” aspects of city centers – outlined in our study –, which are important in contemporary urban processes and support more realistic urban planning.Tanulmányunkban – nemzetközi szakirodalmi kutatás alapján – definiáljuk a központ és az alközpont fogalmakat. Meghatározzuk a központok (és az alközpontok) téri-társadalmi jellemzőinek konceptuális és strukturális keretrendszerét. Ezek az alkotóelemek – Piac és Verseny; Csomópont és Pólus; Hit; Hatalom; Biztonság; Vegyesség; Identitás – a város alapításának, fenntartásának és megújításának feltételei. Egy értékelő mátrix segítségével összegezzük ezen archetípusok metafizikai jellemzőit, és amellett érvelünk, hogy ezek determinálják a központok fizikai tulajdonságait. Elismert szerzőkre hivatkozva ismertetjük a legelfogadottabb városmodellek hármas felosztását: a hagyományos / organikus, a modern / tervezett és a kortárs / széttagolt tipológiát. Azt állítjuk, hogy a hármas felosztás történelmi, elméleti-konceptuális háttere megalapozott. Ugyanakkor ez a hármasság nem foglalja magában azokat a „mérhető” – a tanulmányban felvázolt – szempontokat, amelyek segítségével a valósághoz jobban közelítő, a tervezési gyakorlatban könnyebben alkalmazható központmodellek vázolhatók fel.