The paper explores the role of small towns in the Mazovia region in Poland which is both characterized by rural areas and the suburban zone of Warsaw. The analysis of changes in the local labour markets reveals that microregions formed by small peripheral towns were more resistant to changes than those located in the suburban area of Warsaw. The latter were absorbed by the capital city whose zone of influence expanded in the detriment of adjacent small towns and their microregions. Using the concept of exogenous functions performed by small towns, we also shed light on their role with regard to the surrounding areas (with dominant agricultural function) in the past decade. The values of the service concentration index (SCI) and the level of population concentration showed that the majority of services to local and neighbouring inhabitants were delivered in small county towns located in the periphery. On the other hand, small county towns located in the vicinity of Warsaw mainly provided services to their inhabitants.

This article explores changes in residential patterns of middle- and upper-class professionals in Warsaw (considered as potential gentrifiers) during the post-socialist transition and discusses the delimitation of areas where gentrification-type social evolution has taken place. It addresses three research questions: Could the social upgrading seen in Warsaw be labelled as gentrification? What are the mechanisms of change? How have the different socio-professional subgroups that are commonly described as gentrifiers shaped this process? The analysis revealed that only a few areas could be labelled as potentially gentrified. Most social upgrading was due to intergenerational social mobility in situ. The residential choices of potential gentrifiers tended to reflect their attachment to traditionally attractive neighbourhoods and a search for better living conditions, rather than confirmed new consumption patterns and lifestyle. At the urban scale, although potential gentrifiers were attracted by new housing, this was less obvious when analysed at the level of districts. Drawing on gentrification concepts, and the theory of forms of capital (with particular attention given to the specific characteristics of Central Eastern Europe), the multifaceted role of four groups of potential gentrifiers was explored. A group characterised by a high level of economic capital underwent structural changes and significantly expanded into peripheral areas. Specialists working in the arts and culture (typically the pioneers of gentrification) reinforced their presence in several semi-central areas that were originally inhabited by blue-collar workers. Finally, a dynamically developing group of creative professionals appeared as the post-socialist forerunners of social upgrading.

No abstract

No abstract

Taking a production-side approach, the article discusses how property restitution and privatisation have created rent and value gaps, and influenced social change in the inner city of Warsaw (Poland). Specifically, a rent gap (resulting from restitution) and a value gap (created by low-cost privatisation) are hypothesised to have produced different ownership structures in pre-war residential buildings, with different implications for social change. These effects are assumed to be modulated by three factors: legal constraints, availability of private capital and changing residential preferences. The main findings show that the national legislation and municipal regulations with respect to low cost privatisation created the value gap and favoured intergenerational property transfer and lower residential mobility. The value gap has been eliminated by the changes in municipal regulations. Second, a lack of private capital was a key element in disinvestment in the 1990s, and private developers have since become key actors in shaping the housing offer and have triggered intensive gentrification. Third, residential choices often follow family reasons (inheritance of a unit), and are loosely coupled with a ‘back to the city’ movement. The contemporary choices of many newcomers are still embedded in opportunities created by earlier privatisation. Finally, former municipal tenants in restituted buildings come under pressure from new, private owners to leave their homes. Paradoxically, restitution, seen as a mechanism for social justice, has led to social injustice. Overall, it appears that both privatisation and restitution have fuelled problems of affordability, and led to the exclusion of lower-income households from the housing market.