Features of Gated Communities in the Most Populous Hungarian Cities Gábor Hegedűs Abstract The modern gated communities first appeared in East-Central Europe after the collapse of state socialist systems. In the course of the transition to the market economy, social and economic differences have increased immensely in this region. These processes exercised influence on residential segregation above all. Moving into gated communities turned into one characteristic form of residential segregation. The modern gated communities which are typical for the developed countries have no real antecedents in Hungary. Since the beginning of the 1990s they began to be built in Budapest and in its direct suburban gravitation zone. Since then, especially since the turn of the Millennium, their number has been increasing fast, and they have been spreading rapidly in space. Most of them are still to be found in Budapest, but there are already many ones in smaller cities, as well. It is important to mention that the term gated community is used too generally in Hungary without consideration of the exact definitions applied in developed countries. E. g. the majority of Hungarian ‘gated communities’ are not physically gated from their environment. Some are even not guarded and do not provide exclusive services for their residents, either. In spite of

this developers often try to increase the prestige of their investment by using the expression “gated community”. The largest cities in Hungary have a special administrative status (the so-called City with County Rights). We analyzed gated communities in these cities having mostly over 50 thousands inhabitants. We typified gated communities, analyzed their geographical dispersion in the category mentioned above and within some of these cities, as well. We can observe significant differences in the numbers and spatial distribution of gated communities amongst the analyzed towns. In many towns they occur in specific spatial patterns. Introduction Although having some historical background, the emergence, increase in numbers and global spreading of gated communities is a relatively new phenomenon within modern urban development (GLASZE, WEBSTER & FRANTZ 2006; ATKINSON & BLANDY 2006). Their first appearance in Eastern and East-Central Europe can be dated back after the collapse of statesocialist systems across the region (see e.g. STOYANOV & FRANTZ 2006). Differences in terms of income and wealth have increased significantly in the countries belonging to this region, and these differences resulted in a growing spatial segregation of the urban population (KOVÁCS 1999; KOVÁCS & WIESSNER 2006). In our research we attempted to answer the following questions. How are the gated communities1 in and around the 23 most populous Hungarian cities outside of Budapest (with the status of ‘City with County Rights’) diffused? What are the features of their regional and local geographical distribution? And how can we typify them? It is important to note that there

1

It is very important to point out that – as we mention in this paper – ‘gated communities’ in Hungary have largely very little in common with the Western, American-like gated communities. Gated community is commonly called lakópark (‘residential park’) in Hungarian, and even the real-estate developers mostly use the term „residential park” instead of “gated community” in their English marketing materials. Though, for the sake of unified wording, we use the term ‘gated community’ from beginning till the end in this paper.

91

are gated communities in other Hungarian settlements outside the analyzed cities and their suburban zone, if only to a much smaller extent. General features of gated communities There is a wide range of scientific literature already available on the topic of the emergence and spreading of gated communities (see e.g. BLANDY, LISTER, ATKINSON & FLINT 2003; GLASZE, WEBSTER & FRANTZ 2006). However, studies written on this topic concerning Hungarian conditions have appeared just recently (BÉRES 2002; VÁMOS 2003; CSÉFALVAY 2007; BODNÁR & MOLNÁR 2007; CSÉFALVAY 2008; CSIZMADY 2008). The major part of these studies is dedicated to gated communities in Budapest with a small number concerning the suburban zone of Budapest. Beside these scientific writings, many architectural and real estate professional articles deal with this topic from a rather critical point of view. Various types of definitions on gated communities are used in scientific literature. According to one of them, gated communities are “walled or fenced housing developments to which public access is restricted, often guarded using CCTV and/or security personnel, and usually characterised by legal agreements (tenancy or leasehold) which tie the residents to a common code of conduct’ (BLANDY, LISTER, ATKINSON & FLINT 2003). Since gated communities are private developments, they can provide their inhabitants with exclusive local public goods (‘club goods’) in a higher quality and efficiency than the local governments, resulting in their spreading not only in Hungary (CSÉFALVAY 2008) but worldwide (WEBSTER 2002; GLASZE 2005). Gated communities are separated from their surroundings not only in a physical, but also in a legal sense by various legal means which can sometimes fundamentally infringe the democratic rights of their residents (BLAKELY & SNYDER 1997). Gated communities can show their inhabitants and their surroundings a range of both relative advantages and disadvantages depending and differing on the various points of views and interests. The first gated community began to be constructed at the very end of the 1980s in a prestigious district of the western part Buda in Budapest (BÉRES 2002). Later they started to appear in other parts of Budapest and in its suburban zones. Gated communities of Budapest as well as Hungarian ones in general are – more or less – different from their classical western equivalents, considering the definition mentioned above. Not all are strictly gated and legally separated from their environment. Most of them provide only few exclusive services for their residents (CSÉFALVAY 2008). On the other hand, Hungarian gated communities are usually inhabited by the (upper) middle class. Their residents’ motivations to move into gated communities are based on their demand for well arranged modern flats and for pleasant landscapes. The desire for safety plays only a minor role for the households’ choice in the case of Budapest (CSIZMADY 2008), and supposedly it is neither a factor in other Hungarian settlements and regions as well. Main questions, hypotheses and methods of the survey In the course of our research we examined the diffusion of gated communities outside Budapest in and around the 23 Cities with county Rights in Hungary. We attempted to answer what are the features of their spatial and local geographical distribution, and how can we typify them. Our point of departure was the assumption that gated communities can be interpreted as a particular phenomenon of the process of globalization. We assume that the effects of globalization appear gradually at different levels of the settlement hierarchy in such a way that the mentioned effects are more frequent and intensive at the upper levels, hence our focus on gated communities and their Hungarian adaptation, while they are more infrequent and accidental at the lower levels (see BOROS, HEGEDŰS & PÁL 2006). Gated communities as new, global innovations emerge principally in a way that can be described with the help of the

92

hierarchical diffusion model together with the help of the neighbourhood diffusion model (RECHNITZER 1993). This model can be applied not only in case of Budapest, but on the territory of Hungary as a whole. Our further hypotheses are that gated communities are more frequent in the economically more developed areas (e.g. Northwest-Transdanubia, see Figure 1) of Hungary (due to the highest personal income and purchase power, for instance), and that the development of gated communities is influenced not only by the mentioned human geographical factors, but physical geographical ones, together with policies of local governments. Considering the analysis of spatial distribution, the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (HCSO) has already created a definition for gated communities. However, HCSO uses this statistical category only in its publications around and after 2004. According to HCSO gated community is “a building complex composed of a number of flats, built mostly with physical barriers as a closed residential area in a uniform architectural style on one piece of ground registered by the same topographical number”. It often happens that the statistics of HCSO do not cover all of the gated communities2. Thus, without having an adequate, spatially detailed database, we collected and systematized data about gated communities. We used generally internet data sources. Advertising on the internet is one of the most important marketing tools of the real estate developers, and from these kinds of resources many pieces of information could be obtained. In spite of its limits, this data collecting method is well known and widely used in scientific literature (see e.g. MAXWELL 2004; GRANT 2006; CSIZMADY 2008, CSÉFALVAY 2008). We completed our internet data with telephone interviews (with representatives of local governments and real estate companies). We localized gated communities by satellite images and aerial photography with the help of Google Earth software to analyze their spatial distribution. As we have mentioned previously, the term ‘gated community’ is a very generic term applied to both their functions (e.g. physical segregation, services) and their morphology (architectural character). We attempted to typify gated communities in this study mainly by their functions, and we scarcely mention their morphology. We used a little simplified definition in our study, but in our views this definition can be adapted relatively well to the Hungarian conditions: gated community is a set of buildings which comprises at least 20 flats. It is fenced/walled from its environment (function of physical separation), and it delivers some kind of collectively consumed services (e. g. maintaining green spaces). It also includes collectively used amenities such as playgrounds, swimming pools, etc. for its inhabitants (function of services). The minimum size-specification of gated communities is the only applied criteria which is not functional. But presumably a determination of the minimum dwelling number is needed because we wanted to exclude the very small-sized developments (which are found in Hungary in some number) from our study in order to have a standardized setting. There are some real estate constructions that comprise less than 20 flats. We have done some weighting based on the size of these constructions by excluding smaller projects in the course of our study, that is excluding smaller projects in analyzing the number of gated communities. We examined all kinds of real estate developments which define themselves as a ‘gated community’ or in a similar way3. Those real estate developments fitting completely into our definition were named ‘gated communities with complete functions’ (‘type 1’). The second category includes those projects which are physically separated from their surroundings without delivering any additional services to their inhabitants (termed as ‘gated communities with incomplete 2

Zuhanást mutat a statisztika. Mi a baj a lakóparkokkal? (Statistics show a fall. What is wrong with gated communities?) http://www.napi.hu/default.asp?cCenter=article.asp&placein=hirkereso_cimoldal%20&nID=331653 (last accessed on 15th November 2008) 3 E.g. residential garden, grove etc.

93

functions’ ‘type 2’). We designate developments without being physically separated but delivering services as ‘pseudo-gated communities’ (‘type 3’). We think that analyzing the latest group is also very useful. In some cases it was hard to typify the analyzed real estate development due to the lack of information. While many gated communities are constructed in different phases, sometimes we did not succeed to get information about the level of readiness or the number of flats of the examined projects. Therefore, we collected the data about the finished projects, about those being under construction and – in very few cases – about planned ones. Nevertheless, the number of developments without suitable data was so low that we consider our database representative. Fig. 1: Spatial differences of personal income tax base per capita in Hungarian municipalities in 2005

Source: author’s calculation on HCSO T-STAR 2005, ed. HEGEDŰS, G., 2008

We examined suburban zones belonging to the 23 Cities with County Rights. The delimitation of suburban zone was made by the rate of dwellers among the total number of inhabitants (above 23 %, 2001), by the positive change of population number (between 2000 and 2005) and by the rate of newly-built flats between 2000 and 2005 (above 4.5 %, Figure 2). We did not examine the suburban zone of Érd (Figure 2, 3) because this settlement – the only one among the 23 Cities with County Rights – belongs to the agglomeration of Budapest. The effects of this agglomeration (suburbanization) may be traced back to some extent even in the cases of Tatabánya and Székesfehérvár cities.

94

Geographical distribution of gated communities In the course of data gathering it became obvious that in many cases even the real estate developers misuse the term gated community. They play an important role with their marketing strategies such as internet websites and billboards. Similar means of advertising are experienced in the Budapest agglomeration as well (BODNÁR & MOLNÁR 2007; CSÉFALVAY 2008; CSIZMADY 2008). Their aim is to win the potential homebuyers’ favour. They often use professional marketing tools like promising a ‘better life’, or highlighting the possibility of rising on the social scale to target the customers. The results of the research just partly justified our hypotheses relating to the spreading of gated communities determined by settlement hierarchy and social-economical development (purchase power). Approximately half of all developments defining themselves as gated communities (78 from 151, 51.7 %) cannot be considered as a real gated community in functional terms (this is the group of type 3, Figure 2). The number of gated communities with complete functions (type 1) in our sample is only 41 (27.2 %), and the number of gated communities with incomplete functions is just 32 (21.2 %). There are not many type 1 gated communities in many Cities with County Rights (even in the relatively populous Nyíregyháza, Szombathely or Kaposvár). In some of the 23 cities (in Szekszárd) we did not register any type 2 gated communities, either. There is no development defining itself as gated community in the city of Dunaújváros, we could find only one in its suburban zone. Fig. 2: The number of gated communities in the 23 Cities with County Rights (labelled) and in their suburban zones

Source: ed. HEGEDŰS, G. 2008, source of data: author’s database

In 2008, we can find the highest number of gated communities in Miskolc (the centre of the Northern Hungary NUTS 2. region). The number (7) and proportion (63.6 %) of the type 1

95

gated communities is the highest here, which is remarkable because in Miskolc – in comparison with other regional centres – the purchase power is lower than in the other 6 NUTS 2 regions and its region is one of the most disadvantageous regions in Hungary (Figure 2). There are 2 type 2 gated communities (18.2 %) in the city, too. The second ‘runner-up’ is Kecskemét (4 type 1 and 4 type 2 gated communities, 44.4. %), the third are Győr and Debrecen (4 type 1 (44.4 %) and 2 type 2 (22.2 %) gated communities in both cities). Beside these cities mentioned above, the number and proportion of gated communities is relatively high in Debrecen, Tatabánya and Pécs, as well. It is interesting that in opposition to the previously mentioned cities, there are only few gated communities in Szeged (the centre of the Southern Great Plain NUTS 2. region) and the number and portion of type 1 are still quite low. We related the numbers of gated communities to the resident population (2008) of the 23 cities, establishing a scoring system (1 piece of type 1 gated community is equal to 5 points of gated community, 1 piece of type 2 gated community is equal to 2 points of gated community). The highest number of gated communities proportional to the resident population features Kecskemét (2.5 points of gated community/10,000 residents), Miskolc (2.3), Székesfehérvár (2.0), Győr and Sopron. Most of the gated communities built in the suburban zones can be found in Transdanubia (e.g. around Tatabánya, Székesfehérvár, Pécs, Sopron). Miskolc is a case worth mentioning considering suburban gated communities (the highest number of gated communities eastward from the Danube can be found here). Analyzing the dwelling number of gated communities, significant differences are revealed within Hungary (Figure 3). Fig. 3: The dwelling number of gated communities in the 23 Cities with County Rights (labelled) and in their suburban zones

Source: ed. HEGEDŰS, G. 2008, source of data: author’s database

96

According to our research, the analyzed 151 gated communities comprise 20,642 dwellings all together. Among them 5,869 (28.4 %) belong to type 1, 2,843 (13.8 %) to type 2, and 11,930 (57.8 %) to type 3. Consequently, type 3 is on average scale featured by the highest dwelling number compared to type 1 and type 2, especially is Szeged where the majority of dwellings (finished and under construction) exist (2,818). The high dwelling number is only due to the presence of many, very densely built gated communities (type 3) in the inner parts of Szeged. In the outskirts of the city several new developments (type 3, family house types) are under construction. The dwelling number proportion of type 1 developments is low in contrast to Debrecen where its dwelling number is the second highest among the 23 cities (2,265), and where the greatest number of dwellings (77.4 %) is to be found in type 1 gated communities. There are dwelling numbers higher than 1 000 in Nyíregyháza, Székesfehérvár, Pécs, Tatabánya, Sopron, Miskolc and Győr. Miskolc ranks only 8th, thus there are many smallersized gated communities (belonging mainly to type 1) in the city. The rate of type 1 dwellings is the highest in Szolnok (82.3 %), Debrecen follows with 85.5 %, then Miskolc with 67.8 %, followed by Kecskemét, Győr and Székesfehérvár. If we compare the dwelling numbers with the resident population of the cities with County Rights, it turns out that the majority of type 1 dwellings (dwellings per 10,000 residents) are in Debrecen (85.5), Székesfehérvár (59.3), Miskolc (40.8), Kecskemét, Győr and in Tatabánya. We can observe specific regularities related to the location of gated communities inside the analyzed settlements. Gated communities often club together in clusters that are concentrated in favourable areas of the cities, in Kecskemét, for instance, near the local arboretum (pleasant area with a lot of green spaces), in Miskolc on a hill called Bodótető (panorama) or in Győr along the banks of the river Danube. The same factors, along with others not mentioned now, determine the location of gated communities in the agglomeration of Budapest, too. In the inner zones of the settlements, usually the ‘brown field’ (established in formerly built-up areas) are the most considerable ones (these constructions sometimes develop as a result of a quite peculiar functional change of the area as for example: liquidations of cemetery in Szeged, or barracks in Nyíregyháza). Gated communities on “green fields” (being constructed in formerly non built-up areas and featured by an extensive land use) are much more common on the outskirts of cities (e.g. in Pécs, Kaposvár, Szeged). In the course of research we registered various kinds of effects caused by gated communities. Their advantages on a settlement level may be the brown field revitalization, the increase in economic value, and the growing prestige of the surroundings. The advantages on an individual level would be a more efficient provision of higher quality club goods compared to the public services of the settlement. However, disadvantages of gated communities are also frequent as they sometimes endanger natural values (e.g. forests, groves in Debrecen, Szeged, Tatabánya). Supposedly gated communities of the 23 cities are also inhabited by the (upper) middle class who uses public transport, thus the degree of public transport supply is not satisfactory in every gated community (notably in the case of those built on the outskirts, e.g. in Szeged, Szombathely). Several real estate developers are interested in the densest possible way of realizing their built-in ratio per unit area. Presumably this is the reason for establishing gated communities with multi-storey buildings even on the very fringe of the settlements. It seems interesting that some problems triggered by gated communities like: exclusion of non-members and the increasing proportion of private and pseudo-private areas by establishing type 1 and type 2 gated communities are generally not seen as serious questions by the residents of these settlements themselves. The inhabitants of some examined type 3 gated communities even set out barriers at some border points of their territory to reduce transit traffic (e.g. in Szeged). Other forms of social exclusion seem not to raise questions either. According to one study made in Szeged, the exclusion of homeless people from certain living-spaces of the city receives the approval of a significant part of the city’s population (BOROS 2007).

97

Conclusion In our research we examined the spatial distribution of gated and guarded settlements in the 23 Cities with County Rights and in their suburban zone, trying to typify them in a functional way. Our results partially contradict our hypotheses which supposes that spreading of gated communities is primarily determined by the position of the given settlement in a settlement hierarchy (by the population number) and by the level of regional and local social and economic development (by purchase power). Nowadays, gated communities and similar developments are no longer found in the agglomeration of Budapest exclusively. Real estate developers started to construct them in settlements located outside the agglomeration of Budapest around the Millennium. The proportion of real, functional gated communities among those examined by us is low. The number and location of gated communities within a settlement is determined by physical and human geographical factors as well as the factor of local governments’ policies. Gated communities may often be situated in clusters in such areas where the previously mentioned factors are favourable for the developers. Further studies are needed to analyze the factors influencing the spatial distribution of gated communities more profoundly. The number of gated communities of different functional types in the examined settlements will presumably increase in the future since their provision of higher quality club goods is more efficient compared to the municipalities. On the other hand, we should take into consideration the problems generated by them such as: endangering physical environment, partial or complete exclusion of outsiders, etc. Further research could also focus on the location and morphology of gated communities as well as on the social characteristics of their inhabitants and characteristics of those living in their adjoining areas. Moreover, it would be essential to analyze the roles and interests of local governments, real estate developers and the local society (e.g. civil institutions) in the process of establishing gated communities.

References ATKINSON, R. & S. BLANDY (eds.) (2006): Gated communities. London–New York, Routledge, 242 p. BÉRES, J. (2002): A lakáspiac feltörekvő szegmensei: a lakóparkok terjedése Budapesten. (The rising segments of the housing market: the spreading of gated communities in Budapest). Master Thesis, Eötvös Lóránd University, Budapest, 63 p. BLAKELY, E. J. & M.G. SNYDER (1997): Fortress America. Gated communities in the United States. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 209 p. BLANDY, S.; D. LISTER; R. ATKINSON, R. & J. FLINT (2003): Gated communities: A Systematic Review of the Research Evidence. University of Bristol – University of Glasgow, 63 p. BODNÁR, J. & V. MOLNÁR (2007): Reconfiguring private and public: state, capital and new planned communities in Berlin and Budapest. 4th International Conference of the research network Private urban governance & gated communities, Université Paris, Panthéon-Sorbonne, 2007. CD-ROM BOROS, L.; G. HEGEDŰS & V. PÁL (2006): Globalizációs hatások alföldi városainkban – a városszerkezet és a településkép átalakulása (Effects of globalization on cities of the Great Hungarian Plain – the transition of urban structure and cityscape). Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 3rd Hungarian Geographical Conference, Budapest, CD-ROM BOROS, L. (2007): But some are less equal – spatial exclusion in Szeged. In: KOVÁCS, Cs. (ed.): From villages to cyberspace - Falvaktól a kibertérig. University of Szeged, Department of

98

Economic and Human Geography, Szeged. pp. 151-160. Available at: http://www.sci.u-szeged.hu/gafo/letoltes/mr65_boroslajos.pdf (last accessed on 15th November 2008). CSÉFALVAY, Z. (2007): New Segregation with New Conflicts: Demystifying Gated Communities in Budapest. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference of the research network Private urban governance & gated communities held at the Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 5– 8 June 2007. CD-ROM CSÉFALVAY, Z. (2008): Kapuk, falak, sorompók: a lakóparkok világa 8Gates, walls, barriers: the world of gated communities]. Gondolat-Marina Part, Budapest, 300 p. CSIZMADY, A. (2008): A lakóteleptől a lakóparkig (From housing estates to gated communities). Új Mandátum, Budapest, 321 p. GLASZE, G. (2005): Some Reflections on the Economic and Political Organisation of Private Neighbourhoods. Housing Studies, 20. 2. pp. 221-233. GLASZE, G.; C. WEBSTER & K. FRANTZ (eds.) (2006): Private communities: Global and Local Perspectives. Routledge, London–New York, 242 p. GRANT, J. (2006): Planning Responses to Gated Communities in Canada. In: ATKINSON, R. & S. BLANDY (eds.): Gated communities. Routledge Studies in Human Geography, Routledge, London – New York, pp. 84-96. KOVÁCS, Z. (1999): Cities from state-socialism to global capitalism: an introduction. Geojournal, 49. 1. pp. 1-6. KOVÁCS, Z. & R. WIESSNER.(2006): Entwicklung der Wohnungsmärkte in Budapest und Leipzig (The development of housing markets in Budapest and Leipzig). In: Stadtentwicklung in der Transformation 8City development in transformation), publisher: KOVÁCS, Z. & R. WIESSNER, pp. 41-70. Budapest: University of Leipzig – Hungarian Academy of Sciences Geographical Research Institute MAXWELL, K. D. (2004): Gated Communities: Selling the Good Life. Paper presented at the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) Conference, Toronto, 11-14th July 2004. Available at: http://gated.architectureandplanning.dal.ca/Gated%20communities%20%20selling%20the%20good%20life.pdf (last accessed on 15th November 2008). RECHNITZER, J. (1993): Szétszakadás vagy felzárkózás: a térszerkezetet alakító innovációk. (Disintegration or catching up. Innovations shaping the spatial structure). Centre for Regional Studies of Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Győr, 208 p. STOYANOV, P. & K. FRANTZ (2006): Gated communities in Bulgaria: interpreting a new trend in post-communist urban development. Geojournal. 66, 1-2, pp. 57-63. TIMÁR, J. (2001): Mégis, kinek az érdeke? Szuburbanizáció a kapitalizálódó Magyarországon. [Nevertheless, in whose interest? Suburbanization in the capitalizing Hungary]. 1st Hungarian Geographical Conference, Szeged, CD-ROM VÁMOS, D. (2003): Fogyasztás és lakásépítés: a lakóparkok világa. A lakásépítés strukturális változásai a rendszerváltás utáni Magyarországon. 1-2. rész (Consuming and homebuilding: structural changes of home-building after the system change in Hungary. Part 1 and 2). Available at: [http://arch.eptort.bme.hu/18/18vamosd.html, http://arch.eptort.bme.hu/21/21vamos.html (last accessed on 15th November 2008). WEBSTER, C. (2002): Property rights and the public realm: gates, green belts and Gemeinschaft. Environment and Planning B, 29. 3., pp. 397-412.

99