The Post‐Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after Socialism – Edited by Kiril Stanilov

Urban and Regional Planning Education in Mexico

“…Thus, this study is a way to explore how planning education has evolved and responded to these new challenges that a democratic society poses. Mexico is not a unique case where planning processes and practice have undergone deep transformation due to transitions from authoritarian/centralized planning to a more decentralized and democratic one such as in Eastern Europe (Stanilov 2007), or where globalization forces have posed new challenges to balance speedier urban growth and wealth creation with social issues as in China (Kochan 2018). Analyzing planning education is a way to understand better how the profession has adapted and transformed.…”

Tourism and beyond: Commodification of communist memoryscapes in Central and East Europe

“…According to this framework, historical events trigger certain institutional patterns, structures and chains of events which further influence future decision-making and development (Mahoney 2000). In terms of urban development, path dependency is used to illustrate how historical development of the city is defined by the past institutional legacies and social patterns, channelling the fate of the city towards a particular outcome (Bontje and Musterd 2008;Stanilov 2007). This means that in order to understand post-socialist urban landscapes, one has to reflect on the socialist spatial organization and urban conjunctures.…”

“…Second important characteristics of socialist urbanization was a strong focus on industrial activities and provision of housing in its immediate vicinity, which needed to be reflected in urban design of the socialist cities. Industrial areas were often located in central districts in order to remain close to the large housing estates, occupying vast amounts of land which in market-oriented Western Europe would be commercialized as the exclusive property (Stanilov 2007b). Third, socialist city favoured state ownership, equality, efficiency and functionality rather than aesthetics, with the imperative of providing access to housing, goods and services.…”

“…Cities in Western Europe were already during 1960s and 1970s marked by strong deindustrialization, increasing connectivity, market liberalization, growing leisure economy, internationalization and commercialization of urban fabrics, soon followed by environmental upgrading and inner-city regeneration. These factors significantly influenced urban life and development which followed slow and steady pattern of "organic growth", compared to the organization of Central and Eastern European cities which was entirely based on the state-made decisions and followed the needs of the communist ideology (Stanilov 2007a). While cities in Western Europe had decades to readjust to the diminished role of state, reliance on foreign capital, privatization and land rent, the countries East of the Iron Curtain were subjected to much more violent and fast-paced transformation.…”

“…Previously closed societies of Central and Eastern Europe emerged as lucrative new markets for international companies, promising at the same time lower costs of land use, operation and living. Thus, new business districts and commercial facilities started invading urban centres of major post-socialist capitals, raising the land prices and displacing residents from the urban core (Stanilov 2007b). As the properties in proximity of urban centres and commercial districts saw sharp increase in price, residential properties started to move towards urban periphery, displacing households further of their occupants' workplaces and requiring intensive development of transportation networks (Kostinskyi 2001).…”