In Budapest, one third of the population lives in large prefabricated housing estates. Therefore, this Modern heritage of the Communist period is one of the key issues of sustainable urban development. The majority of scientifi c studies on mass housing focus on economic and social aspects, so this research intends to approach the subject from the built-up environment. Taking the people's needs and Budapest's specifi c situation in relation to the challenges of sustainability as a starting point, the paper attempts to use the back-casting method based on social, economic and environmental trends. Defi ning a theoretically desirable future for this dominant type of urban housing, the analysis works backwards to understand their principal historic turning points. What are the values of large prefabricated housing estates? What were they, and what could they be? How can this modern and open urban form be sustained? What elements of the existing built environment will disappear, and what can be adapted in the transition process? By introducing three different scales -city, neighborhood and building, along with their subcategories -it is possible to recognize the effects of changing socio-economic conditions upon the built context and indicate problem-oriented, locally-minded interventions.Keywords: housing estates, urban renewal, Budapest, sustainable urban neighborhood, assessment indicators, urban history One of the biggest transformations of urban social fabric in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) came about through the construction of large prefabricated housing estates. In Hungary, the mass housing policy utilizing prefabricated technology was initiated with the help of the fi rst fi fteen-year housing policy 1961-75 and the second fi ve-year-plan development project 1961 -65 (Körner 2006. In the politically and economically divided Europe of that time, professional refl ection on modern housing and planning solutions remained absolutely international. France, the United Kingdom, Scandinavian countries and the Soviet Union were principal reference points for the Hungarian stakeholders. Following guidelines fi rst from the International Congresses of Modern Architecture (CIAM), which operated between 1928-59 (for example, the La Sarraz Declaration from 1928, and the Athens Charter from 1933), then recommendations by Team 10, as the

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to introduce a Central-European perspective into the international discussion of the participatory place-making. The research focuses on the renewal of the large prefabricated housing estates, dominant type of urban housing in the area where after the privatisation process resident-owners own only a so-called floating plot under their block. In total, 80 per cent of the land of the whole neighbourhood remains public. The question is how participatory place-making works in this specific urban, social and cultural situation? Design/methodology/approach By introducing the topic from a theoretical point of view, the study is based on research conducted in Budapest’s Újpalota Housing Estate. Fieldwork, project analysis and interviews uncover the complexity of this Hungarian case where appropriation of residents, municipality and European social regeneration projects are simultaneously present with different types of participatory methods. Findings The majority of real changes in Újpalota – as well as in housing estates of post-Communist countries in general – are led by individual or common appropriation that sometimes becomes convincing participation. This informal transformation of the built or natural environment can create a small sense of place everywhere. At the same time, it can work against the architectural and urban character of a neighbourhood or a building, rendering a feeling of disorder. Originality/value The paper based on this Hungarian case shows that the real culture of participatory place-making is still missing in post-Communist context, and despite some good examples, the majority of people are inactive, waiting for changes to be made by leaders.

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).

Abstract