Socio-Spatial Segregation and Mix in Post-Socialist Sofia

Habitat International 50 (2015) 42e50

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Diversity in the suburbs: Socio-spatial segregation and mix in post-socialist Soﬁa

* Diliana Daskalova , Aleksandar D. Slaev

Faculty of Architecture, Varna Free University, Yanko Slavchev Street, 9007 Varna, Bulgaria article info

Article history: However, suburbanization in many parts of the world has been Received 30 March 2015 fueled by at least one other type of migrationdrural-to-urban Received in revised form (Dias, 1990; Krisjane & Berzins, 2012). This type of suburban 14 July 2015 development typically houses lower-income groups, whose relo- Accepted 16 July 2015 cation to the urban periphery is fueled not by ambition to improve Available online 31 July 2015 their lifestyles but rather by a search for opportunities in proximity Keywords: to the city. Both phenomena can contribute to socio-spatial segre- Post-socialism gation in the urban periphery. Suburbanization In Sofia, research has focused almost exclusively on upper-class Socio-spatial segregation suburban development in Sofia's attractive southern periphery. In Social mix Bulgaria this work, we expand the area of study to include the entire urban periphery. The aim of this research is to examine the differences between new residents in different parts of the periphery and find out whether suburbanization leads to socio-spatial segregationda well-known phenomenon in Western cities. This study of contemporary suburbanization in Sofia begins 1. Introduction with a review of literature on suburbanization in relevant contexts. We then use the results of a survey conducted in early 2014 on fi fi At the beginning of the post-socialist transition, most large East speci c characteristics of So a's new southern and northern sub- European cities could easily be differentiated from their Western urban residents. The survey structure is based upon that of an counterparts in that they lacked rings of affluent suburbs in the earlier study, which provides a basis for comparison with present fi periphery (Haussermann, 1996; Hirt, 2007a). Socialist-era city ndings. Census data is presented to show the extent of socio- edges were subject to stringent planning control; they were typi- spatial segregation (or mix) at district and neighborhood levels. fi fi cally marked by large, socially homogenous socialist panel-housing The ndings of our research indicate that migrants to So a's estates and well-defined urban boundaries, beyond which lay a northern urban periphery differ from those in the southern pe- rural periphery of modest villages. Following the fall of socialism, riphery (the Vitosha footlands). We conclude that the resulting fi rings of suburbs began to emerge in and around large cities of the social structure in So a's suburbs is generally less segregated than former Soviet Bloc. Studies have shown that in many cases, post- in the West, at least so far. Especially at the district level, trends socialist suburbanization has been fueled by the relocation of indicate a higher social mix. Yet certain forms of socio-spatial upper-class households in pursuit of higher residential standards, segregation, such as gated housing, are emerging. lower densities, and lusher natural environments (Krisjane & Berzins, 2012; Stanilov, 2007). Thus researchers have perceived 2. Theoretical and historical background the trends in post-socialist cities as following the patterns of intra- urban suburbanization common in Western metropolises, albeit 2.1. Post-war suburbanization in Europe with a significant delay (Hirt, 2007a; Nedovic-Budic & Tsenkova, 2006, chap. 1; Stanilov, 2007). Two main types of suburbanization emerged in post-World War II West European societies. The first type, intra-urban migration, involves middle- and upper-class households that relocate from the inner city to the urban periphery for a quieter, more luxurious life in * Corresponding author. Present address: Mladost II, Block 208A, Apt. 8, 1799 Sofia, Bulgaria. the suburbs. This phenomenon of upper-class suburbanization E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Daskalova), [email protected] (A.D. Slaev). characterized urban development in many Western metropolises http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.07.007 0197-3975/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. D. Daskalova, A.D. Slaev / Habitat International 50 (2015) 42e50 43 throughout the last century (Fishman, 1987; Jackson, 1985). Intra- for different types of housing (Nedovic-Budic, 2001). The city migrants seek to escape urban density by relocating to mani- newfound freedom to express housing preferences brought with it cured “bedroom” subdivisions composed primarily of the homes of a shift away from socialist housing and towards individual housing residents who commute elsewhere for work. These migrants in construction in the urban periphery. Perhaps because living in effect seclude themselves in socially homogenous subdivisions. In uniform, collectivist socialist housing was compulsory for so many Europe, this model of the suburb as a “bourgeois escape” from the decades, residents of post-socialist cities were drawn towards less city is much more prevalent in the north than in the south (Keil, dense housing forms and more private environments. This shift 2013). has been extensively documented in the capitals of Central- In many Western nations, there have also been migrations of European countries (e.g., on Prague, see Stanilov & Sykora, 2012; lower classes to the suburbs, a trend associated with the era of on Budapest, see Kok & Kovacs, 1999; Timar & Varadi, 2001). industrialization but still prevalent in southern European urban Similar but fewer studies have also been conducted in south- metropolises (Leontidou, 1990; Patacchini & Zenou, 2009). In this eastern Europe (Hirt, 2007а, 2007b; Nedovic-Budic & Tsenkova, type of suburbanization, called rural-to-urban migration, margin- 2006, chap. 1). alized peopledtypically poorer immigrants and rural migrants in Studies of Sofia have also shown a trend towards accelerated search of livelihooddmove to the city periphery in hopes of intra-urban residential decentralization since the fall of socialism. improving their chances of survival (Hirt, 2007а; Leontidou, 1990). Once the restrictions on peri-urban development were lifted, Rather than seeking to escape the city, these suburbanites hope to affluent buyers in Sofia quickly reoriented themselves towards the find opportunities near it. Both brands of market-driven subur- new real estate in the southern city periphery and more individu- banization have the propensity to segregate poorer from richer alized housing forms. A rapid process of upper-class residential groups in the city periphery and can create places of socio-spatial decentralizationd suburbanization in its Western sensedbecame segregation. visible (Hirt, 2007a, 2007b; Slaev & Nikiforov, 2013). The peri-urban structures that emerged in post-war Central and An evaluation of population data derived from the 2011 census Eastern Europe were quite different from those emerging in reveals the uneven nature of growth in Sofia's urban periphery. In Western Europe after World War II. Whereas urban development in order to monitor the flow of residents to Sofia's outskirts, the urban the West was largely a product of market-based supply and de- periphery is divided into northern and southern peripheral mand, in the socialist countries strict, centralized control coupled municipal districts. Fig. 1 depicts the southern districts of Ovcha with prefab construction technologies permitted the rapid and Kupel, Bankya, Vitosha and Pancharevo and the northern districts widespread development of large-scale state panel housing in the of Vrabnica, Novi Iskar and the formerly industrial district of Kre- city periphery (Hirt, 2007b; Slaev, 2014). mikovci. Table 1 depicts suburban population growth in these Like other European capitals in the post-war period, socialist districts, beginning in the late socialist period and through the first Sofia was characterized by intense migration from rural areas to- decade of the transitional period. ward cities. To meet the burgeoning demand for housing, state Note that while most of the land in Ovcha kupel and Vrabnica is planners provided apartments to growing numbers of urban suburban, some of it is urban. Most of the population in these dwellers by constructing compact mass-housing estates towards districts is urban, 90% and 98% respectively (NSI, 2012). This is due the edge of the city limits. Outside these boundaries (in suburban to the mass residential housing estates developed in these districts areas), the municipality maintained a conservative policy towards during the 1980s, which explains their high rates of growth from individual development, effectively restricting housing construc- 1984 to 1992. tion. Thus, despite the rapid influx of population from the coun- The growth experienced in Sofia's southern urban periphery tryside, construction outside of the city limits comprised just one- during the transitional period has thus far greatly exceeded that of fifth of total development (NSI, 2012). other peripheral regions. Population influxes followed a path from Sofia's socialist-era residential complexes had an exceptionally the city center towards the suburban districts. Typically, it was diverse demographic and social residential makeup, relative to the wealthier, inner-city residents who moved to the southern pe- Western suburban enclaves (Hirt & Stanilov, 2007, chap. 11). The riphery in order to attain a higher standard of living and custom- inability to express individual housing preferences in effect ized housing styles. Studies show that only 8% of Vitosha's thwarted the primary mechanisms that could have produced newcomers moved from elsewhere in the country (Hirt, 2007a). marginalizing suburbanization and the emergence of affluent or The new residents in these districts shared many other social and impoverished enclaves in the peri-urban zonedthe type of sub- demographic characteristics with “typical” intra-urban migrants of urbanization commonly found in market-driven societies. Instead, the 20th century in the global North and West (Hirt, 2007a, 2007b; Bulgarian municipal authorities envisioned polycentric, socialist- Slaev & Nikiforov, 2013). Thus, intra-urban migration in Sofia's type suburbs for the growing urban middle class (Kovachev, southern urban periphery has been consistent with the dominant 2005; Slaev & Kovachev, 2014). trend in other large, post-socialist cities. In Vitosha, 40% of the participant newcomers had an annual income four times greater 2.2. Contemporary trends in the transitional period than the average Bulgarian's (in 2006, the year of the survey). Newcomers typically commuted to the inner city for work. While a With the collapse of the Soviet Union, urban development full one-third of the long-time residents worked within or near the policies were reversed. The ensuing period of transition constituted peripheral area where they lived, only one-tenth of the newcomers a reorientation towards Western values, democracy, and free- did. market rule. This shift has brought with it new patterns of urban Suburban districts to the north experienced decline in the 1990s (and suburban) development throughout Central and Eastern and began to grow only after 2001 (NSI, 2012). As Table 1 shows, the Europe, including in Bulgaria and its capital city. As a result, many of greatest population decreases in Novi Iskar and Kremikovci the socialist-era complexes have fallen into physical disrepair. occurred during the years 1992e2001. Recent statistics indicate With the deregulation of the land market, urban development that of the 28 suburban settlements in the northern districts of became a product of market-based supply and demand as opposed Sofia, the populations of 9 settlements have decreased, the pop- to tight central planning. Once restrictions on individual housing ulations of 3 have not changed, and the populations of 16 have construction were lifted, consumers could express their demand grown between 2003 and 2011 (NSI, 2009, pp. 29e30; NSI 2012, pp. 44 D. Daskalova, A.D. Slaev / Habitat International 50 (2015) 42e50

Fig. 1. Suburban districts of Soﬁa. Map provided by Sofproekt (Soﬁa's municipal planning company) and adapted by the authors.

208e210). The total change in the 28 settlements has been þ5.46%. 3. Methodology However, research on new residents in these areas is lacking. The following sections address this deﬁciency by presenting new The analysis begins with a comparison of new residents in research on residents in districts of the northern periphery and southern and northern districts. To this end, a survey was given to a comparing them to their southern counterparts. sample of households in three of Soﬁa's peripheral districts, two

Table 1 Population change in suburban districts from 1985 to 2011.

1985 1992 Change from 1984 to 1992 2001 Change from 1991 to 2001 2011 Change from 2001 to 2011

Northern suburbs Vrabnitsa 22,612 39,768 75.87% 47,260 18.84% 47,969 1.50% Novi Iskar 31,765 29,265 7.87% 26,544 9.30% 28,991 9.22% Kremikovtsi 43,651 43,722 0.16% 23,252 46.82% 23,641 1.67% Total 98,028 112,755 15.02% 97,056 13.92% 100,601 3.65% Southern suburbs Vitosha 41,445 38,484 7.14% 42,953 11.61% 61,467 43.10% Ovcha Kupel 17,608 37,012 110.20% 47,380 28.01% 54,417 14.85% Bankya 8299 8228 0.86% 9297 12.99% 12,136 30.54% Pancharevo 23,585 23,056 2.24% 24,342 5.58% 28,586 17.43% Total 90,937 106,780 17.42% 123,972 16.10% 156,606 26.32%

National Statistical Institute, 2012, Census 2011. D. Daskalova, A.D. Slaev / Habitat International 50 (2015) 42e50 45 northern (Kremikovci and Novi Iskar) and one southern (Vitosha). Drawing on a ratio of occupations derived from the National Vitosha represents the southern peripheries as it is the region that Statistical Institute (2012), we paint a picture of contemporary so- has undergone the most intense suburbanization processes in the cial structure in these districts. At this stage, we do not attempt to transitional period. Novi Iskar and Kremikovtsi have been chosen to examine how the suburban social structure has changed over time, represent the northern periphery. Vrabnica is omitted from this as data on historical social structure in suburban areas is lacking. analysis, as the region is not “purely” suburban, as explained above. Instead, we compare the ratios of central, southern and northern The survey was designed to provide data for new analysis as suburban districts. From this, we can draw conclusions about the well as a basis for comparison with the Hirt (2007a) survey of degree of social segregation at the district level. suburban residents in Sofia's southern periphery. Our common At the community level, we measure the extent of social areas of interest with Hirt (2007a) are the intense suburban segregation/mix according to two criteria: first, the degree to which development in the Vitosha Collar, the residents' social character- high-income and low-income housing exist in proximity to one istics, and the type and driving forces of suburbanization. Whereas another, and second, the area of land occupied by private-access Hirt's study was conducted solely among residents in Vitosha, we (gated), high-income housing. With regard to the first criterion, expand the area of research to include residents in northern dis- we examine all new housing developments in the studied districts, tricts, enabling a comparison between them. seeking to identify the scope of mixed housing areas (with various Hirt (2007a) surveyed new and established residents, lot sizes) and homogeneous housing areas (i.e., clusters of same- comparing them in terms of 1) demographic, 2) functional, and 3) sized housing lots, which are a “classical” form of segregation). To motivational and locational criteria. We implement these questions assess the second criterion, we calculate the land surface occupied and this methodology to illustrate the differences between new by newly constructed gated developments. For the purposes of this residents in the south (Vitosha) and the north (Kremikovci and study, a gated development is any group of more than 10 homes Novi Iskar). As in Hirt (2007a), respondents of the present survey that are clustered together and secluded in an area of private access. were split into two main groups: established residents who have We map and measure the surfaces of developments that match our lived in the same district for more than 20 years, and “newcomers” definition. We use data and maps provided by Sofproekt (the who have lived there for less than 20 years. In Vitosha, 100 estab- municipal planning company) to analyze whether and where gated lished residents and 70 newcomers were interviewed in order to developments have emerged. Finally, we calculate the land surface adhere to the quota chosen by Hirt (which reflects the ratio of occupied by gated communities as a percentage of the total resi- established residents to newcomers). We interviewed the same dential land in the district. number of respondents in Novi Iskar and Kremikovci, for a total of 340 surveyed suburban residents. 4. Social and demographic characteristics of new residents Suburban residents were given standardized interviews that requested information about their demographic background and Below we outline the results of the Vitosha Research study ac- residential preferences. The questions were the same as those of cording to our chosen demographic, functional and motivational Hirt's survey, with some modifications based on our preliminary criteria. The answers to the questions illustrate who moves to the studyde.g., the range of lot sizes. Six out of twelve total survey urban edge, in terms of factors such as resident age, income, edu- questions have been selected to represent the key differences be- cation and occupation. tween new residents in the south and north. In the following, they are divided into three categories, demographic, functional and 4.1. Demographic characteristics locational/motivational, and are ordered as follows: Two demographic criteria selected from the survey are pre- Demographic sented below. The first categorizes monthly income among north- Monthly Income of Residents ern and southern districts. Level of Education The second area of demographic distinction is the level of ed- Functional ucation, depicted below. Location of Occupation Table 2 shows that new migrants in Vitosha are typically of a Rate of Travel to the Inner City higher-income bracket. Table 3 shows that newcomers in Vitosha Locational/Motivational are better educated than those who settle in the northern suburban Motivations for Relocation areas. Generally, intra-urban migrants are wealthier than rural-to- Last Residence urban migrants. These data indicate that migrants to Sofia's southern districts resemble intra-urban migrants in that they are The influx of socially homogenous residents with different wealthier and better educated than migrants to the north. characteristics from the established population could conceivably The incomes of established residents (more than 20 years) are lead to changes in the social makeup of districts. In the second part lower than those of newcomers in every district. The average in- of the analysis, we investigate whether the processes of post- come of established residents is typically three-quarters of the socialist suburbanization could be contributing to such changes, average income of newcomers. The survey results do not indicate resulting in socio-spatial segregation. To this end, we measure the any considerable difference in the level of education between extent of segregation (or, alternatively, the degree of social mix) at newcomers and long-time residents. two levels: the district and the neighborhood level. First, we define the extent of segregation/mix at the district level as the degree of 4.2. Functional characteristics occupational diversity within a district. If a district is comprised predominantly of people with high-paying jobsdand thus high The next set of survey questions illustrates the relationship social statusdthen there could be a high degree of segregation. On between new residents and their neighborhoods of residence, the other hand, if a district is comprised of people working in namely, whether they work within the district, where they live and diverse occupations with various incomes, this would indicate a how often they travel outside of the district. high degree of social mix, especially if no social group prevails As Table 4 shows, nearly half of the new residents in Vitosha significantly over the others. work and study in the city center rather than in the urban 46 D. Daskalova, A.D. Slaev / Habitat International 50 (2015) 42e50

Table 2 Monthly income of residents by district.

Monthly income New residents (<20 y) Long-time residents (>20 y)

Vitosha (south) Kremikovci (north) Novi Iskar (north) Vitosha (south) Kremikovci (north) Novi Iskar (north)

Under 99 leva 5.7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100e199 leva 0.% 0% 0% 1.4% 0% 0% 200e299 leva 0.% 0% 0% 7.0% 4.2% 17.4% 300e399 leva 5.7% 6.3% 0% 11.3% 4.2% 13.0% 400e499 leva 5.7% 18.8% 0% 7.0% 8.3% 8.7% 500e599 leva 0% 6.3% 0% 7.0% 33.3% 4.3% 600e699 leva 0% 0% 0% 7.0% 0% 4.3% 700e799 leva 5.7% 6.3% 0% 9.9% 0% 4.3% 800e899 leva 5.7% 12.5% 16.7% 4.2% 4.2% 8.7% 900e999 leva 5.7% 12.5% 16.7% 7.0% 8.3% 17.4% 1000e1499 leva 25.7% 25.0% 25.0% 15.5% 20.8% 21.7% 1500e1999 leva 11.4% 12.5% 33.3% 12.7% 0% 0% 2000 or more 22.9% 0% 8.3% 7.0% 16.7% 0% No income 5.7% 0% 0% 2.8% 0% 0%

Vitosha Research. February 2014.

Table 3 Level of education by district.

Level of education New residents (<20 y) All new residents All long-time residents

Vitosha (south) Kremikovci (north) Novi Iskar (north

No education 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Primary (4th grade) 0% 5.9% 0% 1.5% 0.5% Secondary (8th grade) 5.9% 14.7% 20.0% 11.7% 13.8% High School (11e13th grade) 47.1% 73.5% 57.1% 56.2% 55.7% College 4.4% 0% 2.9% 2.9% 4.4% University 42.6% 5.9% 20.0% 27.7% 25.6%

Vitosha Research. February 2014.

Table 4 Location of occupation by district.

Where do you study/work? New residents (<20 y) Long-time residents (>20 y)

Vitosha (south) Kremi-kovci (north) Novi Iskar (north) Vitosha (south) Kremi-kovci (north) Novi Iskar (north)

Another area in central Sofia 44.1% 17.6% 11.4% 21.6% 11.8% 18.0% Another area in peripheral Sofia 16.2% 11.8% 42.9% 11.8% 15.7% 24.0% In the same area 25.0% 20.6% 17.1% 23.5% 21.6% 14.0% In another city in the Sofia municipality 4.4% 8.8% 0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.0% In another city outside of the Sofia municipality 0% 0% 5.7% 3.9% 2.0% 0% Does not work/study 10.3% 41.2% 22.9% 34.3% 47.1% 42.0% No answer 0% 0% 0%

Vitosha Research. February 2014.

Table 5 Rate of travel to the inner city by district.

How often do you travel to the city? Vitosha (south) Kremikovci (north) Novi Iskar (north) All new residents All long-time residents

Every day 75.0% 38.2% 40.0% 56.9% 37.9% A few times a week 16.2% 26.5% 31.4% 22.6% 22.7% Once in a week 0% 14.7% 11.4% 6.6% 10.3% Once every two weeks 2.9% 11.8% 14.3% 8.0% 10.3% More rarely 5.9% 8.8% 2.9% 5.8% 16.7% No answer/Not applicable 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

Vitosha Research. February 2014. periphery. This ﬁgure is much smaller for newcomers and long- 4.3. Locational and motivational characteristics time residents in Kremikovci and Novi Iskar. The relationship between new residents and the city center is further illustrated by the Finally, the questions on the locational and motivational char- rate of travel to the inner city from the periphery. Table 5 shows acteristics of residents address migrant origins by asking from that a high percentage of Vitosha residents travel to the inner city where they have migrated and why. Only the newcomers are on a daily basis. The percentage of commuters is much lower for considered in this research. The next question provides insight into northern residents. Moreover, long-time residents travel to the the motivations that drive newcomers to relocate to the various inner city less frequently than newcomers. peripheral districts. D. Daskalova, A.D. Slaev / Habitat International 50 (2015) 42e50 47

Table 6 Motivations for relocation by district.

Why did you choose to live here? Vitosha Kremikovci Novi Iskar

We own land here 36.80% 20.60% 57.10% Cleaner air 26.50% 2.90% 5.70% Cheaper property values 8.80% 26.50% 28.60% Quieter environment 23.50% 2.90% 11.40% More job opportunities 4.40% 17.60% 8.60% Closer to work/school/university 7.40% 8.80% 0% More parks/gardens 5.90% 0% 0% Fewer neighbors (and conﬂicts with neighbors) 5.90% 0% 0% Better environment for children and play 1.50% 0% 0% No particular reason 4.40% 0% 0% Other 23.50% 47.10% 25.70%

Vitosha Research. February 2014.

When asked about the motives for their move, respondents and a migration (though slower) of poorer, rural-to-urban migrants were free to name more than one reason. Very few of the new to the northern peripheral districts. The movement of socially ho- settlers in Kremikovci and Novi Iskar cited hopes of increasing their mogenous households to separate districts could induce a process quality of life and environment by seeking more parks, gardens, or of socio-spatial segregation. The following graphs illustrate the quieter and cleaner surroundings, as would be typical for intra- social structure of southern and northern suburban districts in the urban migrants (see Table 6). context of Sofia as a whole. The basis for comparison is the social Table 7 illustrates the locational characteristics, or the origins, of structure of the central districts, where 7.8% of the total population new residents. Over 30% of new residents in the Vitosha district resides. moved from the city center, but migrants from the city center Fig. 2 illustrates the current social structure of the population constitute only a small fraction of new residents in Kremikovci and based on type of employment. The diagrams of the central and the Novi Iskar. Northern residents more typically relocated from other northern suburban districts have opposite forms, which demon- peripheral areas or from municipalities in the country. strates the prevalence of residents with higher social status in These data conclusively indicate that the southern peri-urban central areas and residents of lower social status in northern areas. districts, exemplified here by Vitosha, continue to represent the The social structure of the population looks a bit different if, intra-urban migrant model observed extensively in post-socialist instead of absolute numbers, we analyze the percentages of resi- metropolises, in line with Hirt's (2007a) findings. Their de- dents in various occupations, as shown in Fig. 3. Each type of mographic characteristics and motivations for relocating closely occupation is depicted as a percentage of the overall share of res- resemble those of intra-urban migrants, who move in pursuit of idents with this occupation in Sofia. This means that 9.3% of all higher residential standards. They not only come from but also managers who live in Sofia reside in the central districts, 11.8 of all continue to work in the city center; they are also better paid and technicians who live in Sofia reside in the southern districts, and so better educated than the residents of the northern districts and the on. average Bulgarian (NSI, 2015). The shapes of the diagrams of the central and the northern In contrast, the motivations guiding northern migrants to the districts are not much different from those in Fig. 2, but the shape of periphery contradict the classical intra-urban model represented so the diagram of the southern districts differs substantially. Whereas well by residents of Vitosha. Namely, they move from provinces the numbers of residents with different occupations in southern outside of Sofia, typically not to improve their quality of life but areas vary substantially (Fig. 2), the percentages vary little: 14.9% of rather to take advantage of cheaper property values and improved Sofia's managers, 11.3% of Sofia's highly educated specialists, 14.0% chances of employment in proximity to the capital. As a rule, they of Sofia's qualified workers, and 12.8% of Sofia's unskilled workers neither come from nor work in the city center, which has a all live in the southern districts. Since all occupations are evenly disproportionate share of higher-paying and managerial jobs. represented in Sofia's southern periphery, there is a high level of In the following discussion on segregation and social mix, social diversity. we evaluate the degree to which these trends may be contributing One possible explanation for this result is that the structure of to a process of socio-spatial stratification, wherein groups of so- the population in the southern suburban areas was very similar to cially homogenous households live separately from households that of the northern districts before the accelerated suburbaniza- belonging to other social classes. tion of the early post-socialist years, as observed by Hirt (2007b). This would indicate that the backgrounds of new residents 4.4. Segregation and social mix diverged from those of the pre-existing residents, ultimately altering the social makeup of the communities. If this is true, the Thus far, the analysis suggests a movement of middle- and influx of managers and highly paid individuals and familiesdwho upper-middle-class intra-urban migrants to the southern districts, relocated from the city center in recent decadesdhas in effect “balanced” the social mix in the southern peripheral neighbor- Table 7 hoods, which were previously dominated by working-class fam- Last residence of new residents by district. ilies. The result is a relatively high social mix in the southern Where did you live 20 years ago? Vitosha Kremikovci Novi Iskar outskirts, especially as compared to the northern peripheries. The Another area in central Sofia 33.80% 11.80% 6.10% northern districts are still dominated by a working-class popula- Another area in peripheral Sofia 29.40% 26.50% 24.20% tion, as they have yet to attract higher-class residents. If this is In the same area 1.50% 5.90% 6.10% indeed the case, then intense suburbanization in the southern ur- In another city in the Sofia municipality 5.90% 8.80% 30.30% In a city outside of the Sofia municipality 23.50% 44.10% 15.20% ban periphery has actually contributed to a more mixed, rather Respondent is under 20 years old 5.90% 2.90% 18.20% than more segregated, social structure at the district level.

Vitosha Research. February 2014. At the neighborhood, or community level, the situation is a bit 48 D. Daskalova, A.D. Slaev / Habitat International 50 (2015) 42e50

Fig. 2. Social Structure of Sofia's Districts in Numbers of Managers and Employees. Diagram based on data by NSI (2012:140e165) Census 2011. different. Many authors associate Western intra-city suburbanization segregation at the community level is becoming increasingly with segregation in the form of large homogenous zones of single- visible, as silhouettes of higher-income gated developments have family homes (e.g., Ewing, Pendall, & Chen, 2002; Song & Knaap, begun to emerge. We found 57 gated developments in the Vitosha 2004). Fischel (1985) has examined how zoning regulations lead to district, all of which were built after 2000. These communities segregation at this level by banning lots below a designated mini- occupy around 15% of the newly developed land in the district. mum size. Such zoning laws, typical in North America, in effect However, because their mean size is relatively small (1.5 ha), they produce large areas of socio-spatial homogeneity. In Sofia, however, comprise mainly high-rise (multifamily) buildings. Thus they as in many other European cities, there is no tradition of requiring accommodate between 30 and 40% of all new homes and are a large lot sizes. Sofia's master plan allows for lots as small as 0.05 ha in considerable factor in the process of segregation. On average, all housing zones, including those in peri-urban areas. Furthermore, market prices in gated communities range from 15 to 18% more North American suburbs were built upon vast, empty tracts of land, than average new housing prices in Sofia, which indicates higher but Sofia's suburbanization is occurring in long-established towns quality of housing and, therefore, a higher residential standard. and villages. Developers and high-class buyers are able to purchase Perhaps unsurprisingly, not a single gated development has yet only small lots in between existing residents. According to our survey, been built in the northern peripheral districts (see Fig. 4). only 14.9% of the respondents lived in houses with yards of To summarise, in Sofia social segregation at the neighborhood 0.07e0.12 ha, and only 0.7% had yards of 0.12e0.15 ha. Furthermore, level is less prevalent than it is in Western cities. Due to specific we found not a single homogeneous area (i.e., a cluster of relatively traditions and polices, there are no homogeneous housing zones larger lots) in the studied districts. Thus, socio-spatial segregation in with large lots in the city's peri-urban areas. However, segregation the form of large-lot housing areas in Sofiawasnotobserved. in the form of gated communities is present in the attractive In Vitosha, however, at least one form of socio-spatial Vitosha footlands. Though not yet pervasive, the increasingly

Fig. 3. Social Structure of the Population of Soﬁa's Districts in Percentage of the Total Numbers of Managers and Employees Residing in Soﬁa. Diagram based on data by NSI (2012:140e165) Census 2011. D. Daskalova, A.D. Slaev / Habitat International 50 (2015) 42e50 49

Fig. 4. Gated Developments in the Vitosha District. Diagram by the authors, produced as part of the present research. frequent occurrence of gated, exclusive residential development millennium, the process has yielded a greater social mix than is carries a strong message, as it represents a new phenomenon in typical in the global West. This, accompanied by a trend of rural-to- Sofia's social environment. urban migration, speaks to the unique character of urban development in cities of the region. Understanding these unique characteristics is essential to developing and implementing appropriate 5. Conclusion policies to mitigate the negative effects of suburbanization. Continued research is necessary to develop such policies. While The post-socialist suburban growth that occurred during the the bulk of this work offers contemporary social and demographic fi initial period of transition in So a was indeed distinctly intra- data on Sofia's suburban residents, corresponding information from urban. This research demonstrates that a new suburban type is earlier periods is lacking. Further studies are needed to establish a now emerging. Unlike the wealthy migrants in the scenic southern basis for comparison, necessary to monitor changes in social mix periphery, migrants to the north have comparatively low levels of over time. Will accelerating suburbanization continue to produce income and relocate from non-central city neighborhoods. This social diversity in post-socialist city peripheries? Or will the trends observation prompts us to wonder whether these separate types of follow patterns of development in Western/Northern or Southern suburbanization could lead to socio-spatial segregation. Interest- Europe? Further evaluation of Sofia's local specifics is necessary to fi fi ingly, we nd that So a's intra-urban suburbs achieve relatively determine whether there is an increasing tendency toward West- high levels of social mix. In the districts where the most intense ern patterns and the associated socio-spatial stratificationdin processes of intra-urban migration have occurred, social mix has other words, to determine whether new suburban lifestyles will actually increased. High levels of social mix seem to hold at the eventually lead to more socially integrated or segregated lifestyles. community level too, insofar as segregation in the form of large homogeneous housing areas is not observed. Gated communities, Funding however, are increasingly popular and widespread. The current state of social mix does not necessarily preclude The authors acknowledge the financial support of the European eventual segregation. The settlement of upper-class residents in Union FP7-ENV.2011.2.1.5-1 (TURAS Project) Grant Agreement no. lower-income neighborhoods may increase property values in the 282834. south, which may slowly push out poorer residents. Conversely, the trend of rural-to-urban migration to the north could result in a concentration of lower classes. This in turn could drive property References values down, making the area unattractive for higher-class residents. Indeed, planners should be aware of such a threat in Sofia's Dias, A. (1990). Agricultural changes in the transition of urban-rural linkages in Asia. Regional Development Dialogue, 11(2), 1e22. northern periphery, as post-socialist cities have experienced the Ewing, R., Pendall, R., & Chen, D. (2002). Measuring Sprawl and its impact. Smart effects of suburbanization for only a short time. Growth America Issue. For a time, researchers thought these cities would evolve in the Fischel, W. A. (1985). The economics of zoning law: A property rights approach to American land use control. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. image of Western cities, albeit with a delay. While the intra-urban Fishman, R. (1987). Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New York: Basic trend has prevailed in Sofia during the first decade of the Books. 50 D. Daskalova, A.D. Slaev / Habitat International 50 (2015) 42e50

Haussermann, H. (1996). From the socialist to the capitalist city: Experiences from National Statistical Institute. (2012). Census 2011-population and housing fund 3(23). Germany. Cities after socialism: Urban and regional change and conflict in post- Sofia: NSI. socialist societies. Malden, MA: Blackwell. National Statistical Institute, 2015. http://www.nsi.bg/en/content/5673/household- Hirt, S. (2007a). Suburbanizing Sofia: characteristics of post-socialist peri-urban income, accessed June 5, 2015. change. Urban Geography, 28(8), 755e780. Nedovic-Budic, Z. (2001). Adjustment of planning practice to the new eastern and Hirt, S. (2007b). The compact versus the dispersed city: history of planning ideas on central European context. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), Sofia's urban form. Journal of Planning History, 6(2), 138e165. 38e52. Hirt, S., & Stanilov, K. (2007). The perils of post-socialist transformation: residential Nedovic-Budic, Z., & Tsenkova, S. (2006). The urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe development in Sofia (Chapter 11). In K. Stanilov (Ed.), The post-socialist city: (Chapter 1). In The urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe: Space, institutions and Urban form and space transformations in central and eastern Europe after so- policy (pp. 3e21). Heidelberg and New York: Springer & Physica-Verlag. cialism (pp. 215e244). Dordrecht: Springer. Patacchini, E., & Zenou, Y. (2009). Urban sprawl in Europe. Brookings-Wharton Pa- Jackson, K. (1985). Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. Ox- pers on Urban Affairs, 10,125e149. ford, UK: Oxford University Press. Slaev, A. D. (2014). Types of planning and property rights. Planning Theory. http:// Keil, R. (2013). Suburban constellations. Governance, land and infrastructure in the 21st dx.doi.org/10.1177/1473095214540651. in press. Century. Berlin: Jovis Verlag. Slaev, A. D., & Kovachev, A. (2014). Specific issues of urban sprawl in Bulgaria. Eu- Kok, H., & Kovacs, Z. (1999). The process of suburbanisation in the agglomeration ropean Spatial Research and Policy, 21(2), 155e169. of budapest. Netherlands Journal of Housing and Built Environment, 14, Slaev, A. D., & Nikiforov, I. (2013). Factors of urban sprawl in Bulgaria. SPATIUM, 119e141. International Review, 29,22e29. Kovachev, A. (2005). The Green System of Sofia, urban planning aspects (in Bulgarian: Song, Y., & Knaap, G. J. (2004). Measuring urban sprawl. Journal of the American Zelenata Sistema na Sofia, Urbanistichni Aspekti).Sofia: Pensoft. Planning Association, 70(2), 210e225. Krisjane, Z., & Berzins, M. (2012). Post-socialist urban trends: new patterns and Stanilov, K. (2007). Urban form and space transformations in central and eastern motivations for the migration in the suburban areas of Riga, Latvia. Urban Europe after socialism. The Post-Socialist city. GeoJournal Library, 92. Studies, 49(2), 289e306. Stanilov, K., & Sykora, L. (2012). Planning, markets, and patterns of residential Leontidou, L. (1990). The Mediterranean city in transition e Social change and ur- growth in metropolitan Prague. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, ban development. In Cambridge human geography series. Cambridge: Cambridge 29(4), 278e291. University Press. Timar, J., & Varadi, D. (2001). The uneven development of suburbanisation during National Statistical Institute. (2009). Sofiainfigures. Regional Statistical Office. Sofia: transition in Hungary. European Urban and Regional Studies, 8, 349e360. NSI.