The Jewish Quarter of Budapest:
Authenticity and Commodification of Culture
————
Fruzsina Csala
Supervisor: Tatiana Debroux Advisor: Ruba Saleh
Date of submission: 1st June 2020
Master thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Urban Studies (VUB) and Master of Science in Geography, general orientation, track ‘Urban Studies’ (ULB)
Master in Urban Studies – Academic year 2019-2020
Abstract
Since the 1989 regime change, Inner-Erzsébetváros has undergone rapid transformation and gentrification. This process was not planned but the dialectics of top-down policies and bottom- up initiatives have been the force that shaped the neighbourhood for the past three decades. As being both the Jewish Quarter and the Party Quarter of Budapest, Inner-Erzsébetváros is the most controversial area of the historic city centre of Budapest. The Jewish Quarter is a symbolic space, as most of the representative places of the religious institutional system are located there, and also a space where Jewish culture is present in a commodified way both for Jews & non-Jews and tourists & locals alike. The Party Quarter as an accumulation of bars, nightclubs and eateries is a recent phenomenon of the 2010s. Such function of the neighbourhood is a result of unregulated service hours and a growing number of party tourists. In this context, the main research question – How does the Jewish heritage contribute to the present-day character of Inner-Erzsébetváros – provides a framework to the thesis. Two complementary sets of methods were used to answer the research question(s): (1) online desk research & stakeholder and expert interviews, and (2) perceptions mapping & in-depth field observation. According to the hypothesis, based on the preliminary research, a strong conflict between the stakeholders of the Jewish Quarter and the Party Quarter and the rejection of tourism were expected. Such hypothesis was only partially confirmed as the two narratives are not completely unrelated to each other and as tourism and the commodification of Jewish culture are not regarded as unconditionally negative. On the other hand, the Jewish Quarter has lost its progressive character which once made it unique, namely that ‘ruinbars’ – bars with strong countercultural, often Jewish profile – have been pushed out of the neighbourhood or have changed beyond recognition. As a result, Inner-Erzsébetváros has become a place of institutionalised form of Jewish culture.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...... 1
2 Literature review ...... 5
2.1 The regeneration of Jewish spaces in Central and Eastern Europe ...... 5
2.1.1 Historical overview of Jewish districts in Europe ...... 5
2.1.2 Defining the post-1990 Jewish cultural space and the revival of Jewish
districts in Central and Eastern Europe ...... 7
2.2 Post-socialist urban regeneration in Budapest ...... 10
2.2.1 The post-socialist city ...... 10
2.2.2 Inner-city regeneration: the case of Budapest ...... 11
2.3 Culture as a source of economic development in the city ...... 16
2.3.1 Urban regeneration and culture-driven regeneration ...... 16
2.3.2 Cultural heritage adaptive reuse ...... 18
2.3.3 Consumption of authenticity and commodification of culture ...... 20
3 Case study: Inner-Erzsébetváros ...... 23
3.1 History of Inner-Erzsébetváros: pre-war period ...... 23
3.2 History of Inner-Erzsébetváros: urban decay during socialism ...... 25
3.3 The impact of the 1989 political transition on Inner-Erzsébetváros ...... 27
3.4 Jewish revival ...... 30
4 Methodology ...... 34
4.1 Research questions ...... 34
4.2 Methods ...... 36
4.2.1 First set of methods: preliminary research & interviews ...... 36
4.2.2 Second set of methods: perceptions mapping & field observation ...... 40
5 Findings ...... 46
5.1 Stakeholder and expert interviews ...... 46
5.2 Preliminary research ...... 52
5.3 Perceptions mapping ...... 60
6 Discussion ...... 72
6.1 The different narratives of Inner-Erzsébetváros: The Jewish Quarter and the
Party Quarter ...... 72
6.2 Authenticity and commodification of culture: Jewishness and the ‘ruinbar
experience’ ...... 79
7 Conclusion ...... 87
7.1 Answers to the main research questions ...... 87
7.2 Limitations ...... 90
7.3 Concluding remarks ...... 91
8 Bibliography ...... 93
9 Appendix ...... 99
9.1 Questions of the thirteen in-depth semi-structured interviews ...... 99
9.2 Results of the perceptions mapping questionnaires ...... 103
9.3 Additional maps ...... 107
1 Introduction
Since the 1989 regime change, Inner-Erzsébetváros has undergone rapid transformation, regeneration and gentrification. As being both the ‘Jewish Quarter’ and the ‘Party Quarter’ of Budapest, Inner-Erzsébetváros is the most controversial and conflicted area of the historic city centre of Budapest. Even though they are sharing the same place, the Jewish Quarter and the Party Quarter are two different and very distinct entities without visible overlaps. The name ‘Jewish Quarter’ has become widespread in the last two decades as a result of the so-called Jewish revival and related academic and civic activities. Today, the neighbourhood is a place of
Holocaust memorials and a place where Jewish culture is flourishing. In other words, the Jewish Quarter is a place of memory and also a place of identification1 (Szívós, 2016).
Three historic synagogues, ritual bath, kosher markets, kosher restaurants and offices of Jewish religious and cultural institutions are present there. The tangible and intangible Jewish cultural assets are also seen as tourism commodity (Gantner &
Kovács, 2007). The present-day commodification of local cultural heritage results in
Jewish-related gift stores, restaurants and long queue in front of the Great Synagogue
(officially Dohány Street Synagogue) which is on the ‘must-visit list’ of every guidebook about Budapest. Beyond any doubt, the most recent guidebooks also mention charming ‘ruinbars’ that should be visited in Inner-Erzsébetváros. About two decades ago ‘ruinbars’ were initiated by grassroots mobilization as a response to the emptiness and the devastating physical condition of the centuries-old built environment. Bars – that functioned as micro cultural-hubs (Lugosi & Bell, 2010) – were literally opened in courtyards of old ruined buildings that were waiting for
1 “Through cultural branding the quarter has become lieu de memoiré for those who want to remember, or lieu d’ identite ́ for those who have personal connections to the Jewish traditions” (translated from Hungarian by the author of this thesis) (Szívós, 2016, p. 67).
1 demolition and/or privatization (Smith et al, 2017). These bottom-up cultural initiatives quickly gained a hip reputation for the neighbourhood. By the late 2010s
Inner-Erzsébetváros became one of the main tourist attractions of Budapest thanks to the distinctive vibe of the ‘ruinbars’ – and places that are mimicking the ‘ruin style’ – cheap alcohol and unregulated opening hours (Olt et al, 2019). In the very recent times, the number of mainstream clubs and bars has grown significantly which fuel party- tourism. The contemporary ‘image’ of Inner-Erzsébetváros has several different but not completely unrelated layers; (1) Jewish culture and cultural heritage, (2) the remaining spaces of grassroots urban culture and (3) mainstream party-tourism. In this context, the main research question – How does the Jewish heritage contribute to the present-day character of Inner-Erzsébetváros? – provide a framework to the master thesis.
The present-day character of Inner-Erzsébetváros is researched from several perspectives in this master thesis such as: (1) the post-1990 regeneration the neighbourhood has undergone, (2) cultural capital2 embedded in the area, (3) locals’ perceptions, and (4) stakeholders’ and experts’ opinions.
This thesis provides a comprehensive understanding of the case study neighbourhood. As the focus of the thesis is on how the Jewish heritage contributes to the present-day character of Inner-Erzsébetváros, it is essential to research not only the narrative of the ‘Jewish Quarter’ but also the narrative of the ‘Party Quarter’. It is even more interesting to research such narratives in relation to each other and reveal the possible connections between them. As today both the academic and non-academic discourses about the neighbourhood mainly revolve around the phenomenon of the
‘Party Quarter’, this thesis complements such discourses by emphasizing the Jewish heritage of Inner-Erzsébetváros. The thesis also complements academic studies
2 “Cultural capital as an economic expression of city’s cultural potential made of several kinds of cultural assets that hold or yield a flow of goods and services over time. This definition of cultural capital aims to identify the amount and types of assets which are embedded in a consistent and systemic Historic Urban Landscape” (Throsby, 2001, 2002 as cited in Ost & Saleh, 2021, p. 3)
2 written about the ‘Jewish Quarter’ by the special method of the conducted
‘perceptions mapping’ and the extensive qualitative data collected by thirteen semi- structured in-depth interviews.
The thesis consists of seven main parts. (1) the ‘Introduction’ is followed by the (2)
‘Literature review’. The ‘Literature review’ provides a context for the thesis: starting with ‘The regeneration of Jewish spaces in Central and Eastern Europe’, then, ‘Post- socialist urban regeneration in Budapest’ and finished with ‘Culture as a source of economic development in the city’. Such topics are all related to the focus of this thesis and essential for a deeper understanding of the academic discourses about case study neighbourhood. Then, in the next section, (3) ‘Case study: Inner-Erzsébetváros’ the academic literature written on the neighbourhood is divided into four subsections in chronological order: ‘History of Inner-Erzsébetváros: pre-war period’, ‘History of
Inner-Erzsébetváros: urban decay during socialism’, ‘The impact of the 1989 political transition on Inner-Erzsébetváros’, and ‘Jewish revival’. The aim of this part of the thesis is to provide a solid understanding of the case study neighbourhood. (4) In the fourth, ‘Methodology’ section the research questions are listed, and the two sets of methods are explained: ‘First set of methods: preliminary research & interviews’ and
‘Second set of methods: perceptions mapping & field observation’. (5) In the next,
‘Findings’ section, the results of ‘Stakeholder and expert interviews’, ‘Preliminary research’ and ‘Perceptions mapping’ are organized into three subsections. (6) In the sixth, ‘Discussion’ section the research results are elaborated on by two topics: ‘The different narratives of Inner-Erzsébetváros: The Jewish Quarter and the Party Quarter’ and ‘Authenticity and commodification of culture: Jewishness and the ‘ruinbar’ experience’. (7) Finally, in the ‘Conclusion’ the answers to the main research questions are summarised and the limitations of the thesis are identified.
3
4 2 Literature review
2.1 The regeneration of Jewish spaces in Central and Eastern Europe
2.1.1 Historical overview of Jewish districts in Europe
According to Szívós (2015), from a historical point of view, the European Jewish quarters3 (districts or neighbourhoods) are the geographical spaces of Jewish communities that are indistinguishably linked to the precarious Jewish history in
Europe since the first century. In the medieval times, as Christianity was absolutely dominant in Europe, kingdoms had developed controversial policies4 against Jews containing economic and religious restrictions (Szívós, 2015). From the earliest beginning of the diaspora,5 - throughout the Middle Ages, in certain cases even until today – Jewish communities have had spatial representations in urban settlements
(Szívós, 2015). On one hand, such areas were cohesive and protective thus allowing the community to stay adhered (Szívós, 2015). On the other hand, the Jewish communities were often forced by law to live in a segregated area6. The concepts of a
‘Jewish quarter’ and a ‘ghetto’ are often confused (Gantner and Kovács, 2007). The
‘ghetto’ was a walled area where Jews had to live determined by law in the Middle
3 Szívós (2015) uses the terms ‘district’ and ‘quarter’ in her text. Other authors use ‘neighbourhood’ as well when describing Jewish spaces. Neighbourhood is a more general term than quarter. “The various disciplinary definitions of the ‘quarter’ overlap, all viewing it as a clearly distinguishable unit of urban space, from a material or geographical as from a social, administrative or political perspective.” (Gantner, 2014, p.28) 4 “On the other hand, the authorities in several cases protected Jewish communities. Monarchs and states needed their services and financial resources; rulers often recognized the importance of their contribution to local economies and sometimes even appreciated their cultural and scholarly achievements.” (Szívós, 2015, p.144) 5 “By the first and second centuries CE, most of the Jewish population had left Palestine and lived scattered around the Mediterranean; they settled down in farther Roman provinces such as Gaul and Hispania as well.” (Szívós, 2015, p.143) 6 By the high middle ages (11-13th centuries), throughout Southern and Western Europe, the Jewish population was geographically and socially segregated by walled and closed areas called ‘ghettos’ (Szívós, 2015). The phenomenon of the ghetto first appeared in the 16th Venice (Gantner and Kovács, 2007).
5 Ages and such concept was re-introduced during WWII. Whereas, the ‘Jewish quarter’ has developed organically and it is not separated physically from the surrounding urban environment at all (Gantner and Kovács, 2007). By the middle of the 19th century, medieval physical and legal barriers towards Jews were abolished throughout Europe7 (Szívós, 2015). Even though the emancipated Jewish population contributed significantly to the cultural and economic development of European cities, the post-WWI political anti-Semitism in Central Europe8 prevented peaceful
Christian-Jewish co-existence (Szívós, 2015). After the Anschluss9 (1938), the Jewish population of countries occupied by Nazi Germany – or that co-operated with it such as Hungary – were radically segregated by the re-establishment of the ghettos.
(Szívós, 2015). In many towns of occupied Europe, people who were classified as Jews were forced to live in walled-in ghettos before they were deported to concentration camps. Such ghettos were usually established in neighbourhoods that were traditionally inhibited by Jews (Szívós, 2015).
Considering their inhabitants, the once Jewish districts changed beyond recognition with the Holocaust and the mass emigration it triggered. In many Central European cities such as Krakow, Prague and Berlin, the Jewish population ‘practically disappeared’, leaving a void behind in the traditional Jewish districts (Gantner and
Kovács, 2007). Such void was often filled by lower-income non-Jewish residents in capitals of Eastern European cities (Szívós, 2015). Most of the Eastern European Jewish districts remained untouched10 during the communist period which led to devastating
7 The Jewish emancipation started in France (during the revolution) and followed by the rest of Europe. Although in some places the ghettos existed until the middle of the 19th century. For instance, the ghetto of Prague was surrounded by a wall until 1848. In the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy the full legal emancipation of the Jewish population was realized in 1867 (Szívós, 2015). 8 “In the interwar period, popular as well as political anti-Semitism intensified in many areas of Central Europe, although the combination of reasons might have been different in each country’s case: the losses of World War I blamed on Jews, the Christian or explicitly Catholic self-definition of certain new states.” (Szívós, 2015) 9 the annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany on 12 March 1938 10 As Jewish sacred spaces (synagogues and other community buildings) became dysfunctional, many of them got demolished during the post-1945 period (Szívós, 2015).
6 physical conditions by the 1990s. Jewish districts became symbols of the genocide,
“dead spaces, orphaned monuments to a culture condemned to extermination” (Purchla, 2007, p.7).
2.1.2 Defining the post-1990 Jewish cultural space and the revival of Jewish districts in Central and Eastern Europe
Referring to certain urban areas as ‘Jewish quarter’ or ‘Jewish district’ presumes that the material traces of Jewish culture are somewhat distinguishable. Being Jewish can be defined in several ways such as having an Israeli nationality, being a member of an ethnic group, having a shared culture, religion, philosophy or a combination of any of these aspects (Susán, 2017). Residential concentration of people who have Jewish identity does not mean that they leave visible marks on the given area – such as
Williamsburg, New York or the 13th district of Budapest11 (Gantner, 2014). Such areas are ‘Jewish quarters’ only for people who are aware of their residential composition.
On the other hand, the phenomenon of the ‘Jewish quarter’ in post-socialist cities such as Krakow, Prague and Berlin are independent of any significant Jewish population
(Gantner and Kovács, 2007). Gantner understands such ‘Jewish quarters’ as a “kind of constructed Jewish space, identified by the coordinates of the politics of commemoration, imagineering, and tangible heritage’ (2014, p. 28). In other words, “[T]he resultant Jewish spaces are being constituted in an urban space located at the intersection of ethnic representation, collective memory, and drawing on an imagined material culture, which includes architectural, physical and digital spaces” (2014, p.26). The term ‘Jewish space’ was coined by Pinto (1996), who argues that since the 1980s, Western societies integrated the memory and history of Jews and the Holocaust into their national culture and history (Gantner, 2014). Pinto states that “it is important to stress that a rich
11 Neighbourhoods such as Williamsburg, New York or Finchley, London are homes of strictly religious Jewish communities (whose appearance are clearly distinguishable), but such neighbourhoods ‘do not leave clearly material impressions on the cityscape’ (Gantner, 2014, p. 27). Moreover, neighbourhoods such as the 13th district of Budapest, where large secular Jewish population live, are neither differ from the surrounding urban environment (Gantner, 2014).
7 'Jewish space', containing a multitude of 'things Jewish', is not dependent on the size or even presence of a living Jewish community” (1996, p. 7). In the case of post-socialist cities, the
Jewish space – the Jewish quarter – is mostly re-constructed by non-Jewish actors
(Gantner and Kovács, 2007). Thus, the Jewishness of such quarters relies on the remaining tangible heritage and memories – images – related to them (Gantner and
Kovács, 2007).
On one hand, the re-construction of Jewish spaces by non-Jewish actors can be seen as a way of integrating Jewish culture and history into the national culture12. On the other hand, such phenomenon is a commodification of Jewish culture that trigger cultural tourism13. The revival of post-socialist Jewish quarters by commodifying Jewish culture – in the form of producing low-quality entertainment and spreading stereotypes – is often labelled as ‘Jewish Disneyland’ (Waligórska and Wagenhofer,
2010).
Jewish districts in Central and Eastern Europe –such as in Berlin, Krakow, Prague and
Budapest – are experiencing regeneration and revival since the early 1990s (Murzyn-
Kupisz & Purchla, 2009). The revival of Jewish districts is closely related to the political and economic change (1989-90) in the region. As it was mentioned earlier, during the socialist period, these inner-city neighbourhoods experienced socio-economic and physical decay. In addition, the visibility of Jewish (and other) religious practices were not tolerated by the regime. The regime-change resulted in both the re-discovery of
12 “The phenomenon of Jewish space is characterised by two related dimensions: on the one hand, Jewish space results from the incorporation of the Holocaust into national histories. It represents a country’s acknowledgement of the disappearance of a local Jewish culture, recognising what has been lost, what remains missing and has not been recovered. On the other hand, it denotes a space that contains ‘things Jewish’, ethnically marked cultural and social products that can take shape independently of Jews or a Jewish community.” (Gantner & Oppenheim, 2014) 13 “Today, historic Jewish districts in several European cities are (…) rediscovered as targets of cultural tourism, Jewish traditions and mementos of the Jewish past are packaged for consumption; at the same time, Jewish districts, and one-time places of worship turn into lieux de mémoire, often being the sites of national Holocaust memorials.” (Szívós, 2015)
8 Jewish past and the recognition of economic importance of the city centre. Kazimierz
– the Jewish neighbourhood of Krakow – is a great example of post-socialist complexity of such neighbourhoods. As Waligórska argues, for tourists Kazimierz
“creates an illusion that the Jewish-style cafes and restaurants are a copy of pre-war Jewish
Town”. For Jewish visitors the district is a “magical ground where one can travel back in time and connect to one’s roots” or “the Jerusalem of the Diaspora” on the other hand
“Poland for lot of Jews represents a cemetery” (2009, pp. 111-114). Such sacred perceptions of the neighbourhood are not necessarily relevant when we see that currently it also functions as a gentrified “artistic entertainment zone”, “the Polish Montmartre or Soho”
(Waligórska, 2009, pp. 111-114). In the case of Kazimierz and other similar neighbourhoods, the loss of authenticity is rooted in the major contradiction of the discontinuity of Jewish population with their intangible cultural heritage. Szívós raises a question that ‘explains’ this contradiction; “Is it justifiable to speak about continuity, living or rediscovered traditions, or are Jewish quarters re-emerging mainly as tourist sites, with their one-time populations often gone or changed beyond recognition?”
(2015, p.139).
9 2.2 Post-socialist urban regeneration in Budapest
2.2.1 The post-socialist city
The term ‘post-socialist city’ includes the assumption that the socialist-city was different than the capitalist-city. It is argued that the mode of production plays a key role in shaping urban patterns (Hirt, 2013). Socialist cities were characterized by
‘under-urbanization’, less urban diversity, less marginality and segregation, neglected inner-city neighbourhoods, large residential developments outside of the city centre
(Szelényi, 1996; Hirt, 2013). State ownership and direct control over the urban land created a situation where the land had no real value in economic terms (Szelényi, 1996;
Tosics, 2005; Hirt, 2013).
Sýkora & Bouzarovski (2012) argue that post-socialist cities are ‘cities under transformation’. According to Tosics, several types of post-socialisms co-exist and result in different post-socialist city types (Tosics, 2005). In general, the key features of socialism – state ownership of the means of production, the one-party state, and the absence of capitalist class relations – have clearly disappeared (Szelenyi, 1996). This structural political and socio-economic shift has fundamentally changed the urban development in the Central Eastern European region. The agenda of decentralization14, privatization, suburbanization and the rapid expansion of the retail sector, as signs of the new capitalist economy, have markedly transformed the previous logic of urbanization (Szelenyi, 1996; Tosics, 2005; Hirt, 2013). The
(re)valorisation and (re)privatization of the urban land have led to growing inequalities in post-socialist cities.
14 Even though decentralization is a key element of the transition to a market economy the post-socialist states have managed to keep their substantial influence over local urban development due to the lack of financial autonomy in the lower levels (Tosics, 2005).
10 2.2.2 Inner-city regeneration: the case of Budapest
In terms of the post-1990 development of the inner-city of Budapest, the socialist and earlier legacies are fundamental. The great majority of the buildings in the historical neighbourhoods of Budapest are three and four storey buildings from the 19th century.
The quality of housing and the social status of residents have traditionally been heterogenous in the city centre15 (Kovács, 2009). From 1945, as a result of socialist nationalisation, the previously dominant commercial housing market was halted
(Kovács, 2009). In other words, the historical housing stock became state-owned and functioned as social housing. In the first decades of socialism the city centre remained mixed in terms of the social status of the residents. This ‘healthy social-mix’ broke by massive exodus of well-off families in the 1970s (Kovács, 2009). Since the socialist state had no resources16 and more importantly no intention17 to maintain the historic housing stock, middle-class families left the old buildings of the city centre and moved to newly built housing estates (Kovács, 2009). The middle-class was replaced by much poorer population18 as the rent prices and the quality of the apartments were much lower in the certain central neighbourhoods than elsewhere in the city. Kovács (2009) calls the phenomenon ‘extreme segregation’ and ‘ghettoisation’ which shows that the socialist Budapest was far from being homogenous. In this regard, Budapest highly contradicts the thesis that in the socialist city there is no segregation and geographical
15 “The multi-storey tenement blocks of the nineteenth century provided housing for different social groups. Upper-middle class families tended to rent the more spacious and better equipped flats on the lower floors, whereas dwellings located on the top floors of the buildings and/or facing towards the inner-courtyard were mainly occupied by lower class families.” (Kovács, 2009, p. 402) 16 The rents were heavily subsidised, so the revenues were not even enough for basic maintenance. (Szelényi, 1987 as cited in Kovács, 2009) 17 The aim of the socialist state was to diminish capitalist class conflicts and also its tangible signs. The regime was not in favour of maintaining built heritage from the country’s capitalist past because of ideological reasons. Instead, the aim was to build a new modern socialist state. In fact, considering historical buildings worthless was also the prevailing ideology in elsewhere in Europe around the 1970s not only in the socialist countries (see for example Brusselisation of Brussels). 18 The incoming lower status families were mostly Roma (Gypsy) families. “As Havas and Kemény (1995) stated the number of Roma people in Budapest increased from 25,000 in 1971 to 44,000 in 1994, thanks to the influx of Roma people from rural areas during the 1970s and 1980s. Most of the newly arriving Roma families moved to the state housing sector of historical neighbourhoods, which provided low quality and cheap housing.” (Kovács, 2009, p. 403)
11 disparities. By the 1990s, the rehabilitation of the central neighbourhoods became inevitable.
According to Kovács et al. (2015) interrelated political, economic and social factors19 influenced the post-1990 urban transformation of the historical neighbourhoods of
Budapest.
In terms of political aspects Kovács et al. (2015) mean (1) return to decentralised decision-making system, (2) the process of privatization and (3) the launch of neighbourhood regeneration programmes. In 1990 the previously centralised city administration was divided into 23 districts. The individual districts gained high level of autonomy in terms of implementing regulations, social and economic policies and most importantly owning and managing social housing stock20 (Kovács, 2009; Kovács et al., 2015). As the districts had no income, the general strategy to cover municipal costs was to privatise the newly ‘acquired’ social housing stock as soon as possible
(Kovács, 2009; Kovács et al., 2015). In case of the inner-city neighbourhoods more than
95% of the total dwellings were owned by the district municipalities in 1990 (Kovács,
2009). According to the major rule of housing privatisation, which was set by the state, the sitting tenants had the right to purchase their dwelling for around 10% of the estimated market price (Kovács, 2009; Kovács et al., 2015; Olt et al., 2019). Although, the privatisation law was not concerned about reselling the apartments21 (Kovács,
2009; Kovács et al., 2015). The huge value-gap in case of inner-city dwellings and the possibility to resell the property right after the purchase made the privatisation very
19 These factors are in line with the already mentioned steps of post-socialist transition by Sýkora & Bouzarovski (2012). 20 “On the eve of the political changes public housing made up 50 per cent of the 800,000 total dwelling stock in Budapest. However, in the central districts of the city housing was owned predominantly (95– 97%) by the state.” (Kovács, 2009, p. 405) 21 The rule of privatization, that the sitting tenants have to right to buy the apartment was not case in all of the post-socialist countries. For example, in Prague, whole buildings were privatized which made regeneration and gentrification much faster and ‘smoother’ than in Budapest (Olt et al., 2019).
12 attractive22. On the other hand, the most influential negative aspect23 of such generous privatisation was that it resulted in highly fragmented buildings in term of ownership status (Kovács, 2009; Kovács et al., 2015; Olt et al., 2019). The physical rehabilitation of the already seriously deprived building stock of the city centre became a difficult task because of the fragmented ownership status and the lack of financial resources of the owners themselves (Kovács, 2009; Kovács et al., 2015; Olt et al., 2019). Comprehensive urban regeneration projects were only possible in districts24 where the majority of buildings remained public or where empty lots were available for new construction25
(Kovács et al., 2015). The commonly socially deprived residents of the areas that were designated to regeneration were relocated elsewhere. As Keresztély and Scott argue,
“the exchange of local population [was] the principle objectives of most urban renewal projects” (2012, p. 1131) and “the meanings of renewal and gentrification [were] sometimes confused” (2012, p. 1118). Kovács (2009) calls the relocation of pre-1990 tenants under the framework of urban regeneration as ‘state-led gentrification’. As a result of the fragmented city administration system and the different socioeconomic status of the districts, urban transformation happened differently in every sovereign municipality of Budapest (Kovács, 2009; Kovács et al., 2015; Olt et al., 2019). Kovács et al. (2013;
2015) categorize the different regeneration processes into three types: active strategy
22 As Olt et al. (2019) noted, 80% of the apartments in the central neighbourhoods of Budapest became privately owned by the end of the 1990s. 23 “This logic of privatisation favoured the better-off families, since tenants (now ‘buyers’) of the best quality dwellings in desirable locations benefited most from the value gap.” (Kovács, 2009, p. 406) 24 These districts are the most socially and physically deprived areas in the city centre of Budapest, where tenants did not have enough money to buy their rentals after 1990. Or the district government decided to renovate (or demolish) buildings before selling them. In case of demolition, the district governments had the legal option to compensate the tenants financially instead selling them the apartment. (Kovács, 2009; Kovács et al., 2015). 25 Only two comprehensive regeneration projects were launched in Budapest in the 1990s one in the 8th and the other in the 9th districts. Both regeneration programs were managed in a public private partnership involving foreign investors and later EU funds (Kovács, 2009; Kovács et al., 2015; Keresztély and Scott, 2012; Csanádi et al., 2010).
13 for regeneration26, limited support for regeneration27 and hands-off-approach (in other words, liberal laissez- faire urban policy )28.
The economic factor of post-1990 urban transformation is commercialisation and globalisation (Kovács, 2009; Kovács et al., 2015). In other words, the emergence of competitive real estate market and foreign capital transformed Budapest significantly.
Lastly, the social aspect of urban transformation refers to the profile and lifestyle of new residents and the way they have changed the demography of inner-city neighbourhoods (Kovács et al., 2015). According to the findings of Kovács et al. (2015), historical neighbourhoods of Budapest29 have remained relatively mixed in terms of newcomers – who are younger and better educated than the long-term residents – and old residents. As it was mentioned before, the traditional buildings of Budapest have apartments that are different in terms of quality and size. In other words, the historical neighbourhoods have remained accessible for a diverse social group of people30
(Kovács et al., 2015). The societal changes can also be researched from the demand side: why people chose to live in the city centre31 (Kährik et al., 2016). The great
26 The mentioned two districts the 8th and the 9th were undergone ‘active urban regeneration’ managed by PPP companies (Kovács et al., 2013). 27 By ‘limited support for regeneration’ Kovács et al. (2013) mean that in some districts urban regeneration were less comprehensive. For instance, the local governments in certain districts supported the reconstruction of public squares, pavements and roads but not reconstruction of the building stock. 28 According to Kovács et al. (2013) ‘hands-off-approach’ of urban regeneration means that the local government does little in terms of regeneration, instead the regeneration depends on the private market. This was the case in the 7th district where private investors have built office and residential buildings in vacant building lots. In addition, with the permission of the district municipality, the investors demolished many old buildings in order to free up the space for further constructions (Kovács, 2009; Kovács et al., 2015; Olt et al., 2019). There were a lot of corruption involved in such regeneration process. (see later in this thesis) 29 The case study area of the research by Kovács et al. (2015) were the inner-city districts of Pest: the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th districts. 30 It also means that gentrification was limited only to certain central neighbourhoods and areas where the number of newly built residential buildings is significant (Kovács et al., 2015). 31 According to Kährik et al.: “besides supply side factors which emphasise the conditions of urban spatial fabric, relocations to inner cities can best be explained by a combination of household socio-economic, life course and lifestyle factors” (2016, p.1).
14 Map of inner-city neighbourhoods of Pest Administrative districts of Budapest
majority of inner-city residents are ‘active urban residents’32 which means that they are attached to the cultural offering and other services the city centre provides (Kovács et al., 2015). To sum it up, as a result of lifestyle changes, more and more people value the city centre and choose it as a place to live.
The urban transformation Budapest has undergone or is still undergoing is far from being homogenous. Kovács et al. (2015) identify three types of urban transformations which are the results of the previously explained political, economic and social factors:
(1) gentrification – physical and social upgrading of areas that have undergone active urban regeneration; (2) incumbent upgrading – physical upgrading by the residents themselves mainly in middle of upper-middle-class neighbourhoods; and (3) soft revitalisation – physical upgrading and influx of ‘active-urban’ residents who are not necessary richer than the long-term residents. As Kovács et al. concludes, “these forms of neighbourhood changes intermix in all our seven case-study areas, though with different intensity” (2015, p. 265).
32 The group of ‘active-urban’ residents are either ‘bohemians’ (‘post-modernists’) who are attached to the centre because of its diverse cultural services and leisure offerings or ‘traditionalist’ who value the built heritage more than anything (Kovács et al., 2015).
15 2.3 Culture as a source of economic development in the city
2.3.1 Urban regeneration and culture-driven regeneration
Already in the 1980s, Myerscough (1988) argued that the cultural sector is economically significant thus, can act as a catalyst of urban regeneration33 (as cited in
Labadi, 2011). As evaluation studies shifted towards the social impact of the cultural sector, Matarasso (1997, p. 7) proved34 that “cultural projects can produce positive social effects” (as cited in Labadi, 2011). Although such researches were widely criticised, and it was stated that “more robust evidence on the socio-economic impacts of culture-based (…) regeneration projects (…) [is required]” (Labadi, 2011, p. 16). By the early 2000s it became a new-orthodoxy that “culture–led development or regeneration engenders significant positive outcomes” (Labadi, 2011, p.14).
The strategy of regeneration through cultural projects is widely diverse depending on the context. Evans (2005) draws a distinction between three models such as culture-led regeneration, cultural regeneration and culture and regeneration. In the first model,
“cultural activity is seen as the catalyst and engine of regeneration” (Evans, 2005, p. 968). In this case culture is a source of uniqueness and a symbol of regeneration for instance by a flagship cultural institution or a flagship cultural event35 (Evans, 2005). According to
Evans, cultural regeneration is different than the previous model, because in such
33 Myerscough’s research proofed that investing in cultural projects could create jobs, improve the image of the area and in general makes the place better to live and work (as cited in Labadi, 2011). Later, the research was widely criticized (as cited in Labadi, 2011). “The cultural sector’s role as a significant employer is acknowledged, but these authors argued that it is a special one – with up to 40 per cent of those working in the cultural sector in self-employment or temporary jobs, and higher levels of unemployment than in the labour force in general, despite high levels of educational attainment. Critics also pointed to the markedly differential earnings across the sector, ranging from rather low salaries to higher levels of earnings than for other white collars workers” (as cited in Labadi, 2011, p. 15). 34 The methodology of Matarasso was widely criticized and the results were questioned. “More robust evidence on the socio-economic impacts of culture-based development or regeneration projects as well as their shortcomings is required, as has been regularly pointed out over the past 20 years.” (Labadi, 2011, p. 16) 35 The most well-known cases are Guggenheim, Bilbao; the Lowry, Salford, and Baltic/Sage Gateshead, UK (Evans, 2005).
16 cases36 “cultural activity is more integrated into an area strategy alongside other activities in the environmental, social and economic sphere” (Evans, 2005, p. 968). In the third scenario37 culture is not an integrated part of the development strategy, but some kind of cultural activities might be developed by the local community as a response to the lack of provision (Evans, 2005; Lugosi et al., 2010).
As it was mentioned before, culture has become the new orthodoxy in post-industrial urban development policy (Miles and Paddison, 2005 as cited in Labadi, 2011 and
Yarker, 2018). Even though the culture-led paradigm has been widely criticized in academic literature throughout the last two decades, policymakers predict significant positive economic and social outcomes such as job creation, social cohesion, strengthened local identity and civic pride (Labadi, 2011; Colomb, 2011; Yarker, 2018;
Evans, 2005). As Bailey et al. (2004) argue “the long-term social impact of culture-led regeneration remains something of a mystery. Broadly defined, there is an overriding assumption that culture-led regeneration has a trickle-down effect insofar as it enhances the quality of life of the wider community. However, the key word here is ‘assumption’” (as cited in Colomb, 2011). In other words, “each story of regeneration begins with poetry and ends with real estate” (Klunzman, 2004, p. 2 as cited in Evans, 2005). As it is commonly argued, cultural regeneration may turn a formerly poor and underused site into a space that ‘decidedly fulfils the taste of the middle-class’ (Yarker, 2018). Furthermore, the newly regenerated cultural spaces might exclude local communities by the type of cultural events and programs they offer instead of being inclusive as it was initially
‘promised’ in the regeneration scheme (Evans, 2005; Colomb, 2011). On the other
36 The most well-known case of cultural regeneration is “the ‘exemplar’ cultural city Barcelona which early on took an urban design, cultural planning and creative quarter approach (…) [Poblenou], the former manufacturing area on the city fringe is now targeted as a creative industries quarter (…)” (Evans, 2005, p. 968). 37 “In some cases, where no planned provision has been made, residents (individuals or businesses) and cultural organisations may respond to the vacuum and make their own interventions—commissioning artists to make signs or street furniture, recording the history of their area, setting up a regular music night and so on.” (Evans, 2005, p. 969). Later, these bottom-up cultural interventions may impact the whole regeneration process (Evans, 2005).
17 hand, there are authors arguing that looking at cultural (or culture-led) regeneration as fully positive or negative strategy is a simplification of the reality (Yarker, 2018;
Ulldemolins, 2014). Yarker argues, “when places are transformed through urban regeneration senses of local identity will not always be dislocated” (2018, p.12). In other words, local attachments to a place is not static rather it is an evolving process.
Ulldemolins also challenges the negative understanding of cultural regeneration by arguing that the successful re-branding of El Raval (Barcelona) was a mix of bottom- up and top-down strategies (Ulldemolins, 2014).
2.3.2 Cultural heritage adaptive reuse
It is argued that adaptive reuse, “the strategy of returning value to disused or underused built heritage produce regeneration effects in the local context” (Daldanise et al., 2018, p.6)
Adaptive reuse (‘bringing life back’) is widely considered as a powerful top-down strategy38 of either culture-led regeneration or cultural regeneration by introducing new socioeconomic actors (Daldanise et al., 2018). Adaptive reuse might also develop as a bottom-up approach lead by private local actors targeting local audience and strengthen identity and civic pride related to shared cultural heritage39 (Daldanise et al., 2018). Among others, the success of such bottom-up initiatives depends on the ability of answering local demands for economic, cultural and social services40
(Daldanise et al., 2018).
Gravagnuolo et al. (2017) suggest that the traditionally three dimensions of sustainable development – economic, environmental and social – are unified by
38 Adaptive reuse as a top-down policy and decision-making process is inevitably successful in mitigating urban sprawl, reducing raw materials and revitalize urban areas by introducing new functions (Daldanise et al., 2018). 39 “[The Council of Europe (2005)] defines cultural heritage the (…) resources inherited from the past which people identify, independently of ownership, as a reflection and expression of their constantly evolving values, beliefs, knowledge and traditions and promotes sharing responsibilities by undertaking to (…) respect and encourage voluntary initiatives which complement the roles of public authorities.” (Daldanise et al., 2018, p.6) 40 Example for a successful adaptive reuse project from Belgium: Hal5, Leuven, http://www.hal5.be
18 culture. In other words, “culture is a foundation for sustainable development and thus it embodies the three dimensions” (Gravagnuolo et al., 2017, p. 5.). The role of culture in sustainable development has been acknowledged by the United Nations General
Assembly and the UNESCO (Gravagnuolo et al., 2017). The New Urban Agenda by
UN Habitat III (2016) goes further and recognize the role of culture in cities: “We will support the leveraging of cultural heritage for sustainable urban development and recognize its role in stimulating participation and responsibility. We will promote innovative and sustainable use of architectural monuments and sites, with the intention of value creation, through respectful restoration and adaptation” (United Nations, 2016, p. 32.). Cultural heritage adaptive reuse41 is widely accepted as a sustainable tool and its theoretical framework is in line with the mentioned New Urban Agenda.
41 “Cultural heritage adaptive reuse is a restorative, regenerative and a sustainable form of conservation that extends the life of our cherished heritage, stimulate civic pride and responsibility, and preserve cultural values for future generations. It is not only a value bearer and a cost-efficient strategy, but also a sustainable approach that enables the reduction of depletion of raw materials, decrease transport and energy consumption and dispersion, contributes to lower waste and landfill environmental costs and to scaling down the production of carbon emissions” (Gravagnuolo et al, 2017. p.2.).
19 2.3.3 Consumption of authenticity and commodification of culture
The urban economy of the era described as post-industrial42 and postmodern has partly shifted towards consumption and production of local culture and cultural heritage43 through tourism44. In other words, (urban) tourism is embedded within wider socioeconomic mechanisms such as globalisation, entrepreneurial governance and postmodern consumerism (Colomb & Novy, 2016).
“Urban politics became more and more a politics of economic development and entrepreneurialism as cities were forced into a global interurban competition for investment and economic growth. Consumption, culture and leisure moved centre stage in cities’ political economy as productive sectors in their own right and as favoured means to achieve competitive advantage. And urban planners and policy-makers became increasingly preoccupied with place marketing and image-making policies so as to valorise cities as value-generating units.”
(Harvey 1989, 1990, as cited in Colomb & Novy, 2016).
Harvey (2009, p. 93) argues that “culture has become a commodity of some sort of is undeniable”. In other words, in the neoliberal socioeconomic context, tangible and intangible cultural products are not much different than ordinary commodities
(Harvey, 2009). Yet, cultural products are somewhat specific since the authenticity, uniqueness and particularity of such products are crucial in terms of their economic
42 “Cities’ economies experienced a marked shift away from manufacturing towards service and knowledge-based industries.” (Colomb & Novy, 2016, p.9) 43 Culture implies a vast scope of meanings. According to Tomlinson (1991), culture has ‘hundreds of definitions’ (as cited in Richards, 1996). Williams (1983) categorize the term culture (1) as a general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development, (2) as indicative of a particular ‘way of life’ and (3) as the works and practices of intellectual and artistic activity (as cited in Richards, 1996). Van Maanen and Laurent (1993) define two different aspects of culture, ‘culture as process’ and ‘culture as product’ (as cited in Richards, 1996). Defining culture and cultural heritage is hard since there are many theories co-exist depending on the given contexts. The UNESCO defines culture as a “complex whole which includes knowledge, beliefs, arts, morals, laws, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by a human as a member of society” and cultural heritage as “the legacy that we receive from the past, that we experience in the present and that we will pass on future generations”. It is necessary to recognise that ‘culture is always happening somewhere’. In other words, the particular physical place and its socio-economic context where and when the production and consumption of culture is happening are very relevant. 44 See Richards (1996)
20 value (Harvey, 2009). Place marketing implicitly promotes that localized ways of life can be experienced by visiting such places and consuming local products. On the other hand, tourism itself contributes to a destruction of unique qualities and authenticity of places which have ‘collective symbolic capital’ (Harvey, 2009; Colomb & Novy,
2016). According to Harvey (2009), tourism in world famous historic city centres has led to the so-called ‘Disneyfication’ of such places.45
As Colomb & Novy (2016) argue contemporary cities not only experience commodification but also growing inequality, social polarization and gentrification.
According to their argument, tourism is fundamentally related to these trends. The emphasis here is on wider struggles over the urban restructuring rather than the very much apparent tension between tourists and locals. All in all, tourism is fundamentally political (Colomb & Novy, 2016).
In addition to commodification of cultural heritage sites, it is argued that (once) marginal places are also promoted as ‘authentic’ and ‘counter-cultural’ tourist destinations (Colomb & Novy, 2016). Aside from touristification, commodification of the authentic vibe of marginal neighbourhoods could take place through gentrification (Lloyd, 2002). The influx of ‘new middle-class’ to former industrial neighbourhoods46 entails the decline of the authenticity of such places (Lloyd, 2002;
Evans, 2005; Zukin, 2008). Lloyd (2012) argues that neo-bohemians – artists and lifestyle aesthetes who are not only producers but also consumers of culture – are the initial actors of neighbourhood transformation and gentrification47. Such people, who are
45 Harvey uses Barcelona as an example. 46 Among many others, the examples are Chicago’s Wicker Park neighbourhood (Lloyd, 2002) and Poblenou, Barcelona (Evans, 2005). 47 Lloyd uses the example of Chicago’s popular hip neighbourhood Wicker Park when theorizing neo- bohemia. He also argues that the emergence of neo-bohemia must be understood in the context of global capitalist restructuring. In other words, neo-bohemia is not an isolated phenomenon; artists as ‘first generation gentrifiers’ can be seen as a general trend in post-industrial neighbourhood regeneration (Lloyd, 2002).
21 seeking for authenticity and at the same time cheap living environment in central areas of the post-industrial city, are typically re-discovering and inhabiting neglected industrial neighbourhoods with ethnic and cultural diversity (Lloyd, 2002). According to the scenario depicted by Lloyd (2012), the presence of neo-bohemia turns such neighbourhoods into sites of cultural production and consumption48 while the local working-class and commonly ethnic inhabitants are symbolically displaced by the perceived exclusiveness of the places of the newcomers (such as art galleries, cafes, bars and clubs). In other words, the authenticity that triggers artists moving to a neglected area is under threat exactly by their presence (Zukin, 2008). The presence of neo-bohemia and their particular spaces of consumption significantly transform the perception of the once working-class areas and trigger further real estate investments.
Such investments commonly lead to extreme gentrification and the displacement of the artists themselves by more affluent inhabitants (Lloyd, 2002; Zukin, 2008).
48 In other words, the neighbourhoods experiencing influx of new-middle class undergo significant changes in order to cater the needs of the new incomers (Zukin, 2008).
22 3 Case study: Inner-Erzsébetváros
3.1 History of Inner-Erzsébetváros: pre-war period
Erzsébetváros49 was developed outside of the city walls in the 18th century as the earliest suburb of Pest50. Jews were not allowed to settle down within the city walls up until the 1830s. Thus, they were concentrated in Erzsébetváros. It is important to note that (Inner-)Erzsébetváros was not the only, and not the earliest area inhibited by
Jewish people. In the medieval times, the Jewish population was concentrated in
Buda, in the area which is currently the castle area (Komoróczy, 2018). In the 18th century certain Jewish families got the permit to settle down in Pest, but only outside of the city walls (Komoróczy, 2018). A third important Jewry-related area is
Újlipótváros51 (the 13th district of Budapest) which was formed between the two World
Wars as the place of the Jewish ‘elite’ while the Inner-Erzsébetváros was left to Jewish
‘middle class’ (Keresztély, 2009; Gantner & Kovács, 2008). Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries Inner-Erzsébetváros became home to three major synagogues52 and several Jewish institutions53. In addition, it was a lively place where all kinds of goods and services were available (see: Figure 2) (Szívós, 2015; Keresztély, 2009). Among small businesses, until the Second World War Inner-Erzsébetváros was packed with entertaining facilities, cabarets and café-chantants54 (see: Figure 1) (Szívós, 2015; Konrád,
49 The area at that time was called Terézváros (after Habsburg Empress Maria Theresa). Later in 1882 it got divided (Komoróczy, 2018). The side of the Jewish Quarter was named Erzsébetváros (after Habsburg Empress Elizabeth). Theresa). Initially it was not inhibited by Jews but Christian tradespeople who had no right to settle down within the city walls. (Szívós, 2015) 50 Until 1873 Pest and Buda were two different cities separated by the Danube. 51 Today, the majority of the Jewish community of Budapest live in Újlipótváros (Gantner & Kovács, 2008). 52 The Dohány Street synagogue (1859), the Rumbach Street Synagogue (1872) and the orthodox synagogue (1913) are located close proximity to each other and together form the so-called Jewish triangle (Keresztély, 2009). 53 Orphanage, school, Jewish cultural centre (Keresztély, 2008) 54 “Café-chantant is a type of musical establishment associated with the belle époque in France.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Café-chantant
23 Figure 1: Royal Orfeum, 1928 Figure 2: Király Street, 1929 Source of the photos: FSZEK Metropolitan Ervin Szabó Library, Budapest
2018). This early entertaining function is especially interesting since today the area is
(also) considered the party quarter of Budapest.
There were synagogues and churches in close proximity to each other just like the
inhabitants who lived on the same streets no matter which religious creed they
belonged to (Szívos, 2015). The area was always multicultural, multireligious and
multilingual, but it certainly had a Jewish character (Szívós, 2015). The neighbourhood
just became homogenously Jewish when it was turned into a ghetto55 in late 1944. The
ghettoization meant that the continuity of non-Jewish population broke by forced
relocation. Due to a lack of time, most of the ghetto’s Jewish inhabitants were not
deported to Auschwitz. Thus, unlike the Jewish population of many Central European
cities and the entire Jewish population of the Hungarian countryside, a large number
of Jews from Budapest survived the Holocaust (Szívós, 2015). When the war was over,
the pre-wartime residents, both Jewish and non-Jewish, could return to their homes
55 “The darkest era of the Jewish community in Budapest arrived in November 1944, after the unsuccessful attempt of the Horthy government to withdraw from the German alliance. Supported by the German invaders, the new Szálasi government erected ghettos in both areas [Inner-Erzsébetváros and Újlipótváros], with the intention of deporting the Jews of Budapest. (...) Újlipótváros was liberated on January 16, 1945, and two days later the Soviets also liberated the main ghetto in the old Jewish quarter.” (Gantner & Kovács, 2008, p.142)
24 in Inner-Erzsébetváros. Right after the war, instead of returning, a great share of the
Jewish population emigrated56 abroad (Szívós, 2015). The second major emigration wave57 was after the revolution of 1956 (Szívós, 2015).
3.2 History of Inner-Erzsébetváros: urban decay during socialism
The socialist regime, established in 1949, did not tolerate private capital neither religious practice58. Such environment for Jews, who were traditionally small business owners, did not allow to have their pre-war lifestyle (Szívós, 2015). Thus, a great share of the Jewish community left Hungary. By the 1970s the great majority of the families who lived in Inner-Erzsébetváros before the war (both Jewish and non-Jewish) were replaced by newcomers59 (Szívós, 2015). The Jewish population of Inner-Erzsébetváros decreased remarkably (Keresztély, 2009). Those who stayed in the neighbourhood
56 Many Holocaust survivors left Hungary right after the war “those who could not forgive Hungary for what had been done to them and their families.” (Szívós, 2015, p. 109). Hungary was an active participant of the Holocaust not only a victim of it. Actually, in 1920, Hungary was the first country in the modern Europe where anti-Jewish laws were passed (Susán, 2017). 57 Many people left Hungary not to live under a totalitarian Communist regime. The regime did not tolerate private ownership at all neither practicing religions. For Jewish residents who were small business owners before the war, communism could not offer an environment they appreciate. Many Jews from Inner-Erzsébetváros left their home because of the establishment of the Communist regime in 1949. Many people both Jewish and non-Jewish who missed their chance to leave Hungary before 1949 left the country after the 1956 revolution. Most of the Jewish people went to Israel, USA, Canada, Austria, West Germany, France and Britain. Migration towards Palestine (and later Israel) was organized by Zionist movements in Budapest. Later, these movements were banned by the Communist regime. (Szívós, 2015) 58 “The Jewish character of the neighbourhood was on the wane because signs of observance could no longer appear in the public space as they could before 1945. The Communist regime heavily discouraged religious practice, especially in its publicly visible forms. The cultivation of Jewish identities was equally discouraged. So Jewish community life went almost underground during the decades of state socialism, relegated largely into the private sphere; only a handful of dedicated rabbis and a shrinking number of religious institutions were holding guard to the tradition – under strict political control, and under strong pressure to cooperate with the state.” (Szívós, 2015, p. 111). “Many Jews in socialist Hungary, out of their personal experiences and their fear of anti-Semitism, against which they hoped to be defended by the government, accepted [a] homogenizing, two-dimensional self-definition.” (Gantner & Kovács, 2008, p.143) In 1950, the Communist regime forcibly merged all Jewish denominations and communities under the umbrella of the National Association of Hungarian Israelites (MIOK) (https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarországi_Zsidó_Hitközségek_Szövetsége). 59 “The “Old Jewish Quarter” of Budapest lost much of its character as a Jewish district in terms of residential composition. The wartime losses, the post-war waves of emigration, and the massive replacement of the population by non-Jewish residents all contributed to that.” (Szívós, 2015, p. 111).
25 Figure 3: Blaha Lujza Square, Akácfa Street, 1955 Figure 4: Klauzál Street, 1985 Source of the photos: Fortepan Archive
were almost invisible since practicing religion openly was not tolerated by the socialist
regime (Keresztély, 2009). Inner-Erzsébetváros lost its Jewish character (Keresztély,
2009; Szívós, 2015).
Socialism resulted in a physical (see: Figure 3), social and demographic decay of Inner-
Erzsébetváros and other historic neighbourhoods of Budapest (Kovács, 2009). Because
of ideological reasons the regime was not in favour of renovating the historic districts
rather concentrating on building new modernist neighbourhoods outside of the city
centre (Szelényi, 1996). As the buildings were seriously run-down, the younger and
higher-status residents moved out from Inner-Erzsébetváros leaving behind aging
population. In addition, deprived social groups, among others many Roma families,
were settled in the neighbourhood by the state providing them social housing there
(Keresztély, 2009; Szívós, 2015).
26 3.3 The impact of the 1989 political transition on Inner-Erzsébetváros
1990s
The post-socialist municipality of the 7th District (Erzsébetváros) inherited one of the most neglected parts of the city (see: Figure 4) (Smith et al., 2017). Unlike in other physically and socially disadvantaged areas, in Inner-Erzsébetváros no overall urban regeneration has happened. Inner-Erzsébetváros was a somewhat special case in terms of privatisation. Due the proposed plan of the Madách-promenade60 (see: Figure
5), entire building blocks remained municipality owned, meaning that apartments were not for sale for sitting tenants (Olt and Lepeltier-Kutasi, 2018). The district municipality was planning to realize a promenade that is cutting across Inner-
Erzsébetváros. Such plan would have meant the destruction of plenty of old buildings.
The Madách-promenade has never been realized, but the designated old buildings were vacated61 meaning, the socially most vulnerable tenants were relocated to other parts of the city (Olt and Lepeltier-Kutasi, 2018; Olt et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2017). The buildings were privatized through a well-documented corruption scheme (Sipos &
Zolnay, 2009; Olt and Lepeltier-Kutasi, 2018). As a result of speculative private investments (Olt et al., 2019), many of the neglected old buildings were demolished and replaced by new buildings with low architectural value (see: Figure 6) (Perczel,
2007). As Sipos and Zolnay (2009) stated “the district municipality is responsible for the destruction of the oldest and architecturally most significant area of Pest”.62
60 The plan of the Madách-promenade is a more than 100-year-old urban plan. According to the original plan, a wide avenue would have cut across the Jewish Quarter. The plan of the avenue was altered into a promenade in the 1990s. The construction would have entailed the demolition of entire 19th century building blocks in the area. Even though the entire promenade was not realized, many old buildings were demolished and replaced by new buildings that do not fit into the existing urban tissue (Sipos & Zolnay, 2009; Csanádi, et al., 2012). 61 “Tenants of the municipality dwellings did not have much to say in this process: they could choose from three exchange flats or take the cash compensation, which was hardly enough to buy another apartment in the outskirts of the city.” (Olt and Lepeltier-Kutasi, 2018, p.12) 62 translated from Hungarian by the author of this thesis
27 Figure 5: Plan of the Madách Promenade, 2003 Figure 6: Akácfa Street, 2020 Source of the photo: Bereczki Mészáros Architects / avs.hu Source of the photo: author of this thesis
To sum it up, there was no overall municipality-led rehabilitation strategy, private investors renovated or replaced old buildings one by one (Olt et al., 2019). Demolition of old buildings and displacement of the most unprivileged inhabitants who rely on municipality owned apartments were the triggering force of regeneration and social upgrading in Inner-Erzsébetváros. As Kovács et al. (2015) classified, the liberal laissez- faire regeneration of Inner-Erzsébetváros followed a hands-off-approach.
2000s
The 2008 economic crises and the successful lobbying for heritage protection for the
Jewish Quarter stopped the rampant process of deconstructions and reconstructions.
Due to financial constraints and the lack of demolishing permits, private investors left many neglected old buildings empty (Olt and Lepeltier-Kutasi, 2018; Olt et al. 2019).
In this context a kind of bottom-up upgrading started to happen as the central location of the neighbourhood and the low rental prices attracted students, artists and young professionals (Smith et al., 2017). The influx the young generation was closely interrelated to the rise of alternative bars – the so called ruinbars (see: Figure 7 & 8).
Bars – that functioned as micro cultural-hubs (Lugosi et al., 2010) – were literally
28 Figure 7: Tetthely (ruinbar), 2005 Figure 8: Szimpla (ruinbar), 2005 Source of the photos: mierzsebetvarosunk.blog.hu
opened in courtyards of old ruined and emptied buildings that ‘survived’ the
demolitions. These places were not just bars, rather bottom-up cultural initiatives that
catered the alternative cultural scene of Budapest. Such places quickly gained a hip
reputation for the neighbourhood.
2010s
In a completely unplanned way, by the 2010s Inner-Erzsébetváros has been developed
into the Party Quarter63 (Olt and Csizmady, 2020). The area has become a target of
party-tourists – people who only concerned about consuming alcoholic beverages and
attend parties – thanks to local factors as the distinctive vibe of the ruinbars, cheap
alcohol and unregulated opening hours and global factors of tourism growth and low-
cost airlines (Olt and Csizmady, 2020; Olt et al, 2019; Pinke-Sziva et al., 2019).
Tourism64 entailed the rapid growth of the real estate sector triggered by Airbnb. Such
phenomenon resulted in the socioeconomic restructuring of the neighbourhood. In
63 The complex reason why Inner-Erzsébetváros has become the ‘Party Quarter’ are explained by Olt and Csizmady (2020, p. 22) by the following elements: (1) After 2008 real-estate prices decreased by 25% which changed the plans of speculative real-estate investors. (2) The national level regulation of commercial activities was deregulated in 2009 thus municipalities lost their licensing rights for bars and could only regulate the opening hours. (3) New ‘ruinbars’ started to operate in privately owned buildings with capacities exceeding 1000 guests and with stable (5+5 years) and of course much higher priced rent contracts. (4) [As a] complete victory for entrepreneurs, [opening hours are not regulated in Inner-Erzsébetváros] at the same time in adjacent inner-city districts, bars have to close at midnight or earlier. As a result, [Inner-Erzsébetváros] became a hotspot of the night-time economy. 64 “200 thousand guests arrive on a weekend evening to a 0.5 sq. km. area of the city” (Olt and Csizmady, 2020).
29 other words, the rise of tourism significantly accelerated gentrification (Olt et al, 2019;
Pinke-Sziva et al., 2019). As night-time economy is widely unregulated in the Party
Quarter the neighbourhood commonly considered ‘unliveable’ due to night-time noise, dirt and the immense number of short-term rentals (Olt et al, 2019; Pinke-Sziva et al., 2019). In such situation the main groups of local actors are in bitter conflict.
There are irreconcilable conflicts between hospitality entrepreneurs and local residents, between local residents and the municipality and between the municipality and hospitality entrepreneurs (Mérai and Kulikov, 2019). As Pinke-Sziva et al. concludes “regardless of the different trajectories of European cities, post-socialist cities (e.g.
Prague, Budapest) are now suffering from similar impacts of tourism to cities that have been established destinations for much longer (e.g. Barcelona, Berlin)” (2019, p. 12).
3.4 Jewish revival
In Budapest, unlike in other post-socialist cities, the great majority of the Jewish population survived the Holocaust and remained in the city during the communist time. As it was mentioned earlier, during the post-war communist period, Jewish religion was tolerated, but far from being encouraged to flourish by cultural and religious activities. The Jewish identity was rediscovered and restored65 in the 1980s as the regime became more tolerant of religious and cultural practices. The 1989 regime change entailed the fragmentation of the homogenised institutional structure of the Jewish community enforced by the communist regime (Gantner & Kovács, 2008;
Susán, 2017). As Susán (2017) argues, the first decade of the post-socialist Hungary was devoted to reconstruction of the Jewish institutional, educational and welfare system as well as facing the tragic legacy of the Holocaust. Not just the Jewish institutional system, the definition of Jewishness was also ‘simplified’ by the
65 For instance, the first Jewish-related NGO, the Hungarian Jewish Association (Mazsike) was formed in 1988. (http://mazsike.hu/rolunk) Mazsike is unrelated to the National Association of Hungarian Israelites (MIOK) which was the official Jewish association from 1950 until 1990.
30 communist regime. Jewishness was equal to Jewish religion (Gantner & Kovács, 2008).
The rediscovery of Jewish identity meant the fragmentation of the rigid concept of
Jewishness. The newer generation (the third generation after the Holocaust) started to explore and define their Jewishness in a different way than their parents (Gantner &
Kovács, 2008; Susán, 2017). Such generation developed a ‘new Jewish identity’ with their motto of ‘it is cool to be Jewish; it is cool to be different’ in the early 2000s (Susán, 2017, p.1). The places associated with this ‘new Jewish identity’ overlap with the area of Inner-
Erzsébetváros (aka the Jewish Quarter of Budapest).
Since the 1990 regime change, Inner-Erzsébetváros has been witnessing its Jewish revival. Surprisingly, according to a sociological survey66 in 1999, Jewish population was still overrepresented in Inner-Erzsébetváros (Szívós, 2015). Today, the Jewish
Quarter with its Holocaust memorials, synagogues and Jewish institutions is a place of memory and also a place of identification (Szívós, 2016). In addition, the Holocaust memorials, the synagogues and the Jewish-style restaurants with catchy marketing attract a huge number of tourists. One can think that the Jewish Quarter is a symbol of resilience and continuity. According to Gantner & Kovács (2007; 2008; 2014), the
Jewish Quarter we know today is a constructed cultural space67 by and for Jews and non-
Jews alike. The image of the Jewish Quarter of Budapest is not a result of conscious cultural regeneration strategies, but on the contrary it is the dialectic relation between top-down and grassroots initiatives that has been actively shaping it. Re-naming and referring to the area – which is officially called Inner-Erzsébetváros or Inner-7th District
– as the ‘Jewish Quarter’ happened in the early 2000s (Polyák, 2006). Since then, the name ‘Jewish Quarter’ has become widespread. This name has engendered a lot of
66 According the survey, Jewish population was overrepresented in Inner-Erzsébetváros, but not as much as in Újlipótváros. “The total eclipse of the one-time “Jewish district” had been more or less public perception by then; so the sociologists were the most surprised when they came upon the above conclusion. (…) [T]he results of the survey shed light on a hidden and underexplored, but existing continuity of Jewish presence in the Inner 7th District throughout the 20th and early 21th century.” (Szívós, 2015, p. 111) 67 “The old Jewish quarter has slowly become a constructed “Jewish cultural space” for Jews and non-Jews alike. This space functions as a screen onto which Jewish themes are projected by gentiles.” (Gantner & Kovács, 2008, p. 144).
31 controversy among academics since the area was never called a ‘Jewish Quarter’ throughout its history (Komoróczy, 2018). The re-naming was a conscious act by the civil association ÓVÁS!68 (óvás means veto and protection). The ÓVÁS! NGO had been campaigning against the demolition of old local buildings since 2004. The ÓVÁS!
NGO have raised awareness towards both the tangible and intangible Jewish cultural heritage.
The Jewish Quarter of Budapest as a Jewish space is defined by the different generations of Hungarian Jewish communities that are either religious or non- religious. In many Central and Eastern European cities, as the result of the absence of
Jewish communities, the historic Jewish quarters have become spaces of nostalgia, stereotypes and clichés re-constructed and regenerated mostly by non-Jewish actors
(Gantner & Kovács, 2008). Gantner and Kovács understand such Jewish quarters as
“constructed cultural spaces in which the Jewish elements are determined by non-Jewish actors” (2008, p.146) The case of the Jewish Quarter of Budapest partly corresponds to the mentioned concept (Gantner & Kovács, 2008). On the one hand, Jewish institutions are actively involved in the creation of the Jewish Quarter69 (see: Figure 9). On the other hand, “Hungarian Jewish associations (…) convey a homogenous image of Jewry that obstructs the unfolding of any kind of meaningful plurality, therefore, monopolization and the two-dimensional nature of Jewish cultural space in Budapest can be attributed to non-Jewish agents as well as the one-sided conception within the establishment of the Jewish community”
(Gantner & Kovács, 2008, p.147). The main difference between the Jewish Quarter of
Budapest and other Central European historic Jewish quarters is not the lack constructed Jewish space, but the presence of the places of the new Jewish identity or
68“The NGO ÓVÁS! was founded in 2004 to preserve and protect the past, the buildings, the traditions and the inhabitants of the Old Jewish Quarter of Pest. The quarter has been protected by UNESCO since 2002. Paradoxically, it was in the year when residents were started being moved out and buildings were started being demolished.” https://ovas.hu 69 For instance: The yearly event ’Jewish Cultural Festival’, mostly placed in Inner-Erzsébetváros, is organized by the Federation of Hungarian Jewish Communities (MAZSIHISZ) and the Jewish Communities of Budapest (BZSH).
32 Figure 9: Poster of the Jewish Cultural Festival 2018 Figure 10: Celebrating Chanukah at Sirály, 2009 Source of the photo: zsidokulturalisfesztival.hu Source of the photo: Ruth Ellen Gruber, jta.org
Jewish subculture (Gantner & Kovács, 2008). Such places – namely Sirály70 (see: Figure
10) - established by the Jewish youth organization called MAROM71 – emerged “side- to-side with the not specifically Jewish alternative scene in Budapest” (Susán, 2017, p.2). By the time Sirály was founded (2006), the Jewish Quarter was already known as a place of ruinbars and related alternative cultural scene. “Sirály was a space where Jews and non-
Jews organized and participated in Jewish and non-Jewish events, without clear boundaries between one or the other” (Susán, 2017, p.19) According to Gantner and Kovács, Sirály and other places of the Jewish subculture were “meeting places, allowing for perspectives beyond traditional religious ones” (2007, p. 219). Keresztély describes Sirály as a “roofed ruinbar” which is a “cultural centre specialising in Jewish culture but also open to other multicultural programmes, and evening discussions on the future of the neighbourhood and the city” (Keresztély, 2009, p. 178).
70 “In 2006, members of MAROM and the City Theatre co-founded Sirály, an alternative community and cultural center in the heart of the historic Jewish Quarter.” (Susán, 2017) “Sirály means “seagull” in Hungarian and is a reference to Chekhov’s drama of that name.” (Susán, 2017) 71 “Marom Civil Association began its activities as a Jewish youth cultural organization in 1999, but over the years, retaining its former focus, has been expanded to become one of the most important civil society organizations.” https://marom.hu/#miamarom “Marom is open to Jews and non-Jews from the beginning, with the goal of reinterpreting Jewish culture for both Jews and non-Jews.” https://marom.hu/2019/09/05/susan-eszter-a-massagrol-valo-aktualis-beszed- nagyon-nem-jo/ “MAROM is an initialism created from the first letters of the Hebrew words Merkaz Ruchani U’Masorti, which means “Spiritual and Traditional Center.” It is an international Jewish organization primarily of young adults (ages 18-35) and is affiliated with the worldwide Conservative movement. The different MAROM groups across the globe have diverse profiles, sizes, and programs.” (Susán, 2017)
33 4 Methodology
4.1 Research questions
This thesis considers the present-day character of Inner-Erzsébetváros as the main subject of its study. By present-day character this thesis refers to the mentioned labels
– the ‘Jewish Quarter’ and the ‘Party Quarter’ – Inner-Erzsébetváros bears today. As it is assumed, the present-day character of Inner-Erzsébetváros is much determined by the kind of rampant regeneration the neighbourhood has undergone since the fall of the iron curtain. In this context, the first research question is the following:
To what extent was the Jewish heritage responsible for the regeneration that
Inner-Erzsébetváros has undergone since the 1990 regime change?
This thesis is specifically concerned with the effect of Jewish heritage on the contemporary image, cultural offering, cultural consumption, cultural production and hospitality industry of Inner-Erzsébetváros. In this context, the second research question is the following:
How does the Jewish heritage contribute to the present-day character of
Inner-Erzsébetváros?
Two additional sub-questions were identified to clarify the second research question.
By two of the questions the narrative of the Old Jewish Quarter is investigated. These two questions are the followings:
What does the name ‘Jewish Quarter’ represent? To what extent can Inner-
Erzsébetváros be considered Jewish?
34
Finally, the last research question is closely related to the method of perceptions mapping which will be explained in the ‘methods’ section. This question keeps it open what is defined significant in the neighbourhood in terms of culture. Through the perceptions mapping questionnaires locals and tourists are asked to name the most relevant cultural assets of the neighbourhood. In other words, it is investigated whether the neighbourhood is defined as ‘Jewish’ by the respondents or not.
Answering such question would clarify the role that Jewish heritage plays in the present-day dynamics of Inner-Erzsébetváros. The last research question is the following:
How do locals and tourists perceive tangible and intangible cultural assets
of Inner-Erzsébetváros? In other words: Which tangible and intangible
cultural assets of Inner-Erzsébetváros are the most relevant for locals and
tourists?
35 4.2 Methods
The research of this thesis consists of the combination of mixed qualitative and quantitative methods. Central to this thesis, thirteen qualitative in-depth interviews72, which were semi-structured and designed as open-ended questions were taken with selected stakeholders and experts. In addition, perceptions mapping was conducted with random local people and tourists. “Perceptions mapping is a sense-making process during which people map their cultural, natural and human assets through five senses – sight, touch, taste, smell and hearing.” (Saleh & Ost, 2019). The results of perceptions mapping are visualised and shown on maps and diagrams. Photos, the results of first-person observation, are attached to the maps and diagrams. The qualitative interviews and the quantitative perceptions mapping complement each other.
4.2.1 First set of methods: preliminary research & interviews
In order to answer the research questions – (1) To what extent was the Jewish heritage responsible for the regeneration that Inner-Erzsébetváros has undergone since the 1990 regime change? (2) How does the Jewish heritage contribute to the present-day character of Inner-
Erzsébetváros? (3) What does the name ‘Jewish Quarter’ represent? / To what extent can
Inner-Erzsébetváros be considered Jewish? – in-depth interviews were conducted with selected stakeholders, researchers and experts. It was necessary to formulate a viable hypothesis based on massive preliminary research in order to arrange the stakeholder interviews with the most appropriate people. The preliminary research included media analysis – reading non-academic articles73 about the neighbourhood – and the already existing academic literature about the (1) post-socialist urban regeneration of
Budapest and Inner-Erzsébetváros, (2) the history of the Jewish community of
72 See: Appendix 73 Media analysis (reading articles about the neighbourhood) happened much before the focus of this thesis was articulated. Such articles helped to formulate an idea about the ‘hot topics’ related to the neighbourhood. Non-academic sources are referred in this thesis where it is relevant.
36 Budapest, (3) the revival of the neighbourhood as the Old Jewish Quarter of Budapest and (4) the most contemporary urban issues such as tourism and night-time economy related controversies that are happening in the area. In addition to academic works,
Inner-Erzsébetváros is highly debated in the Hungarian media as an area that is
‘unliveable’ because of unregulated night-time activities such as long opening hours of night clubs, close proximity of residential buildings and hospitality facilities, the noise and dirt that ‘party tourists’ generate and skyrocketing rent prices thanks to
Airbnb. These issues are all related to tourism that has boomed in the area in the last couple of years. Just as today the media is frequently dealing with the mentioned issues, a decade ago the neighbourhood was also one of the main subjects of critical articles. In the 2000s the municipality of Erzsébetváros was sharply criticized in the media because of corrupt privatization and demolition of century-old buildings. Such history of the neighbourhood is not unrelated to the rise of the so-called Party Quarter.
Online available articles about the mentioned urban issues were assessed in order to get a comprehensive view about the neighbourhood. Finally, elemental information of the Jewish community of Budapest was collected online. The focus was on the geographical location of different Jewish institutions such as synagogues, schools, kosher food places and offices of the different Jewish denominations. It was checked whether they are located in Inner-Erzsébetváros or not. In other words, the
‘Jewishness’ of the Jewish Quarter was pre-evaluated. Such extensive preliminary research has made it possible to formulate a hypothesis in the form of expected answers to the research questions. The preliminary research also helped to define the interviewees and set the interview questions. The profiles of the interviewees are very diverse, they are either academic researchers of the mentioned topics, stakeholders in
Inner-Erzsébetváros and/or members of the Jewish community. All together thirteen in-depth interviews (see questions in the ‘Appendix’) were conducted with the following researchers, experts and stakeholders:
37 1- Gergely Olt, Researcher at Institute for The preliminary research of this master thesis Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences / was based on among other the works76 of length of the interview: 73 minutes Szívós about the history of the Old Jewish Quarter of Budapest. Interviewing Szívós Olt and his fellow colleagues have published provided a deeper understanding of the 20th several academic research papers74 about century social changes of the neighbourhood, gentrification, tourism and night economy in the revival of Jewish identity after the regime Inner-Erzsébetváros. The interview with Olt change and the contemporary situation in revolved around the corrupt privatization terms of cultural tourism. process and related physical and social Related research questions: (1), (2), (3) transformation Inner-Erzsébetváros has undergone since 1990. 4- Anna Perczel, architect, urbanist, President of Related research question: (1) ÓVÁS! Association77 / length of the interview: 67 minutes 2- Levente Polyák, Urban planner, researcher, member of the KÉK- Contemporary Architecture Perczel is a key figure in raising awareness of Centre / length of the interview: 42 minutes the built heritage of Inner-Erzsébetváros. She was the first researcher who called the As Polyák is specialised on urban regeneration neighbourhood “the Old Jewish Quarter”, she and cultural development and he published a is a founder of ÓVÁS! Association and an much-sited research paper75 about the role of author of several research papers78. The heritage in urban planning in Budapest using interview with Perczel concentrated on the the example of Inner-Erzsébetváros, the physical regeneration of the neighbourhood, interview with him was mainly about the the activity of ÓVÁS! and the revival of the regeneration and gentrification of the area. area as the Old Jewish Quarter of Budapest. Related research question: (1) Related research questions: (1), (2), (3)
3- Erika Szívós, Head of Department of Economic and Social History, Eötvös Loránd University / length of the interview: 83 minutes
74Csanádi, G., Csizmady, A., & Olt, G. (2010). Recent trends in urban renewal in Budapest. Olt, G., Smith, M., Csizmady, A., & Sziva, I. (2019). Gentrification, tourism and the night-time economy in Budapest's district VII – the role of regulation in a post-socialist context. Pinke-Sziva, I., Smith, M., Olt, G., & Berezvai, Z. (2019). Overtourism and the night-time economy: a case study of Budapest. Smith, M., Egedy, T., Csizmady, A., Jancsik, A., Olt, G., & Michalkó, G. (2017). Non-planning and tourism consumption in Budapest's inner city. 9 75 Polyák, L. (2006). Heritage as argument, heritage as authority: Notions and positions in contemporary Budapest urban planning discourse. 76 Szívós, E. (2015). Introduction: Historic Jewish Spaces in Central and Eastern European Cities. Szívós, E. (2015). Turbulent history, troublesome heritage: Political change, social transformation, and the possibilities of revival in the “Old Jewish Quarter” of Budapest. 77 Óvás! Association was formed in order to protect the built heritage of the Old Jewish Quarter against demolitions. Óvás means protection and veto at the same time.“It was in 2005 that ÓVÁS! first warned UNESCO of Budapest’s world heritage sites and their buffer zones being endangered by significant changes taking place in the historic Jewish district, describing the demolition of buildings and the construction of new, entirely out of place ones.” https://ovas.hu 78 Perczel, A. (2007). Pest regi zsido negyedenek sorsa, jelenlegi helyzet [The fate of the old Jewish quarter of pest and the current situation].
38 5- Eszter Susán, Founder of MAROM79, PhD Communities. The advantages and candidate, NYU Steinhardt, Education and Jewish disadvantages of tourism in the area was studies Doctoral Program / length of the discussed during the interview. interview: 63 minutes Related research question: (2) and (3) The interview with Susán was about the role of Marom Civil Association as a Jewish youth 9- Balázs Szücs, Deputy mayor of Erzsébetváros / cultural organization in introducing an length of the interview: 34 minutes alternative way of expressing and Interviewing Szücs was essential for the experiencing Jewish identity. Such new Jewish understanding of the point of view of the subculture evolved around the bar called district municipality. Szücs is a deputy major Sirály opened and run by Marom in Inner- of Erzsébetváros in charge of cultural and Erzsébetváros between 2006 and 2012. religious issues. The interview revolved Related research questions: (1), (2), (3) around the municipality’s plan to turn the district into a cultural quarter. 6- Ádám Schönberger, Founder and president of Related research question: (2) MAROM / length of the interview: 59 minutes 10- Erika Frőhlich, Owner of Frőhlich Pastry The interview with Schönberger was Shop / length of the interview: 36 minutes particularly useful in understanding the complex debate of what Jewish culture is and Frőhlich Pastry Shop is a kosher pastry shop what the Old Jewish Quarter means to the Jewish founded by Frőhlich’s father in 1956. It is a community. In addition to the discussion with landmark business in the Jewish Quarter Susán, Schönberger further clarified the role attracting both Jewish and non-Jewish Sirály played in the alternative cultural scene customers who are either locals or tourists. of Budapest. The interview with Frőhlich provided an Related research questions: (1), (2), (3) insight of the local Jewish community. Related research questions: (2), (3) and (4) 7- Zsófia Lefkovics, Director of Csányi 5 Jewish Cultural Center and Museum / length of the 11- Dániel Preiszler, Manager of Carmel Kosher interview: 35 minutes Restaurant / length of the interview: 47 minutes
Interviewing Lefkovics as a director of a The interview was about the target audience Jewish cultural institution made it clear who of this kosher restaurant. In addition, Preiszler the target audience is of such institution and explained the Hungarian Jews relation to the importance of its geographical location. kosher diet. As Preiszler noted, 90% of the Related research question: (2) restaurant’s costumers are non-Hungarian tourists who are commonly either Orthodox 8- Iván Róna, Head of tourism department of Jewish people from New York or Israeli Federation of Hungarian Jewish Communities / tourists. length of the interview: 65 minutes Related research questions: (2) and (3)
Róna is the tourism director the Dohány Street 12- Bence Molnár, Head of communication of Synagogue Complex80 which is of one of the Szimpla / length of the interview: 78 minutes most visited tourist attractions of Budapest. It is run by the Federation of Hungarian Jewish Szimpla is the most well-known ruinbar in
79 “Marom Civil Association began its activities as a Jewish youth cultural organization in 1999, but over the years, retaining its former focus, has been expanded to become one of the most important civil society organizations.” https://marom.hu/#miamarom 80Dohány Street Synagogue, Jewish Museum, Jewish Cemetery, Wallenberg Holocaust Memorial, Ghetto Exhibition
39 Budapest attracting thousands of tourists every week. Molnár described all the efforts Horváth holds a master’s degree in history the management of Szimpla is making in order and he is working as a tourist guide, among to be a socially sustainable cultural facility. other locations, in the Old Jewish Quarter of The interview also tackled how the profile of Budapest. The interview revolved around the Szimpla has changed significantly since its common profile of tourists who visit his Jewish opening in 2002. Tours. In addition, as he is working for a Related research question: (2) private company, the relationship between such tourism company and local Jewish 13- András Horváth, Tourist guide / length of institutions was also discussed. the interview: 36 minutes Related research question: (2)
To sum it up, answering the research questions is only possible by synthetizing the conducted interviews. Even the interviews that are not closely related to any of the research questions were essential to understand the complex context of the specific research questions.
4.2.2 Second set of methods: perceptions mapping & field observation
The methodology of perceptions mapping was developed by ICHEC’s team under the framework of CLIC H202081 research project. As Ost & Saleh (2019) note: “The process of perceptions mapping is a sense-making process during which people map their cultural, natural and human assets; express their opinions, ideas, needs and aspirations but also; raise concerns and highlight conflicts related to the management, conservation and preservation of the cultural capital for future generations. Departing from the perceptions, the collective memory of what a place was to the community arises. Likewise, diverging and/or converging perspectives emerge in reference to what it is today and above all, how the community would like it to be tomorrow. This research embraces the paradigm shift (demand driven instead of market driven) and it thus, departs from and investigates the urban sustainable needs identified by the everyday makers.”
81 Horizon 2020 research project CLIC: Circular models Leveraging Investments in Cultural heritage adaptive reuse (https://www.clicproject.eu)
40 In this thesis perceptions mapping is seen as a tool to encourage local actors to re- imagine the use and misuse of cultural assets82 of their living environment. In addition, perception mapping helps to consider cultural assets as resources that all of the local actors have a somewhat meaningful connection with. This thesis is particularly concerned about unfolding such diverse personal connections to the cultural assets of Inner-Erzsébetváros which hopefully lead to a general picture.
Personal perceptions of cultural assets can be considered as mirrors of the political and socio-economic dynamics of the neighbourhood. In other words, the post-1990 changes that happened in terms of cultural consumption in Inner-Erzsébetváros – as the Old Jewish Quarter and as the Party Quarter – might be detected by perceptions mapping. All in all, by using this method, the controversial and complex process of site-specific urban regeneration and the accelerated consumption of unique local cultural products and spaces are investigated from a non-conventional point of view.
The research questions of this thesis – How does the Jewish heritage contribute to the present-day character of Inner-Erzsébetváros? & How do locals and tourists perceive tangible and intangible cultural assets of Inner-Erzsébetváros? & Which tangible and intangible cultural assets of Inner-Erzsébetváros are the most relevant for locals and tourists? – are partly answered by perceptions mapping83. As it was understood from the literature review, the Jewish heritage does contribute to the character of Inner-Erzsébetváros in different ways. As it was mentioned before, Inner-Erzsébetváros is a place of memory – with its Holocaust memorials for Jews and non-Jews alike – and a place of identification for the Hungarian Jewish community (Szívós, 2016). In this thesis both the role of
Inner Erzsébetváros as a place of memory and place of identification is researched through
82 Cultural assets are defined by Pillai as “tangible and intangible aspects of culture (historical and current) that have significance for individuals/groups within the community” (2013, p. 5). Janet Pillai’s book – Cultural Mapping: A Guide to Understand Place, Community and Continuity – is considered to be an important literature for perceptions mapping. 83 In case of the firstly mentioned research question perceptions mapping is a complimentary method to qualitative interviews with selected stakeholders.
41 in-depth interviews and perceptions mapping and in-depth observation by focusing on (1) Jewish heritage as valorised by tourism; (2) places that cater members of the
Jewish community; (3) Jewish heritage as perceived by locals. The second & third aforementioned research questions are fully answered by perceptions mapping.
Unlike the previous research questions, these questions are not exclusively related to
Jewish heritage. In other words, it keeps open which cultural assets of the neighbourhood are defined relevant by the respondents of the perceptions mapping questionnaire. Such cultural assets might be related to Jewish heritage or not. The expected results would clarify the role that Jewish heritage plays in the present-day dynamics of Inner-Erzsébetváros.
The research was partly modelled after the method of perceptions mapping developed by ICHEC’s team and structured into two steps. The first step was a literature review on the unique case of the Jewish Quarter of Budapest and online84 desk research about cultural places, Jewish related places and tourism related places in the area. The results of such preliminary research are visualised on maps85. The maps, together with the information acquired from the research papers written on the post-socialist renewal of the area and the Jewish revival of the neighbourhood provided a solid base of knowledge for further data collection and the assessment of such data. The second step of the research was field work. The data was collected through questionnaires and in-depth observations86. Two types of questionnaires were set with different target audiences.
84 Mainly Google maps, the website of the city of Budapest (geoportal.budapest.hu), and TripAdvisor were used to define the cultural, touristic and other functions of the buildings and sites of Inner- Erzsébetváros. 85 In the CLIC research project these maps are called as maps of ’economic landscapes’. 86 research stays led in August 2019 and February 2020 The in-depth observation consisted of: (1) attendance of several guided tours targeting tourists; (2) taking photos and field notes; (3) visiting the Jewish Museums and the synagogues; (3) visiting ruinbars; (4) observing the users of the neighbourhood
42 The first questionnaire was made for tourists87. Altogether, twelve tourists filled in the questionnaire. They belong to different age groups – the youngest was 19-year-old and the oldest was 49-year-old – and they are from all over the world88 with different levels of knowledge about Budapest and the Jewish Quarter itself. The questionnaires were distributed at the most famous place in the area: Szimpla, the oldest ruinbar, which attracts thousands of tourists every night. The questions89 can be divided into three groups: (1) personal information – age, nationality, reason and length of stay in
Budapest; (2) the respondents’ knowledge about the neighbourhood and their willingness to get to know it more; (3) and personal perceptions about the neighbourhood. Due to the small number of respondents, the results will not be precisely quantified. As it will be demonstrated in the ‘Findings’ section, even from such a random sample of tourists a general trend of answers can be deducted. The reason behind mapping tourists’ perceptions is to be able to compare to the locals’ perceptions. Then, these the perceptions of these two groups – tourists and locals – clarify how cultural space is being consumed.
The second questionnaire90 was made to record locals’ perceptions of the cultural assets of the area. Such questionnaire strictly follows the perceptions mapping
87 The questionnaire targeting tourists is not following the questions developed by ICHEC under the framework of CLIC H2020 project. The perceptions of tourists can be seen as a complementary set of results to the perceptions of locals and the in-depth interviews. 88 The 12 respondents have nine different nationalities from three continents. 89 First group of questions: Age & Nationality & How many times have you been to Budapest? How long are you staying here now? & Do you have any specific reasons visiting Budapest (and the Old Jewish Quarter)? Second group of questions: How do you know this neighbourhood? & Do you know that this neighbourhood is called the Old Jewish Quarter of Budapest? & Have you visited or are you planning to visit cultural institutions in the neighbourhood? Which ones? Third group of questions: When you think about this neighbourhood, what is your first impression? Please describe the area in few words (adjectives)! & According to your impressions, which cultural assets representing this neighbourhood the best? & Can you give examples of tangible or intangible signs of Jewish culture? & If you had to describe this place by a colour, what colour would it be? 90 This questionnaire is much longer and much more precise than the tourists’ questionnaire since it is assumed that locals know much more about the neighbourhood. Most importantly they were asked to define the neighbourhoods’ cultural assets and threats to those cultural assets through five senses. Such task would require a deep understanding and clear opinion of the area.
43 interview questions developed by developed by ICHEC's team under the framework of CLIC H2020 project. Besides the facts that the questions were translated to
Hungarian and instead of taking interviews, questionnaires were distributed among locals, only one significant change was made, namely that instead of ‘cultural heritage’ the questionnaire uses the expression ‘cultural asset’. The reason behind such change is linguistical. In everyday Hungarian language the term cultural heritage refers more to tangible elements and most importantly it refers to something ‘old’. On the other hand, the present research was willing to include contemporary both tangible and intangible cultural values. Altogether, twenty-two questionnaires were filled in by locales from all walks of life. The respondents were chosen randomly following the perceptions mapping methodology developed by ICHEC's team. Finding locals who are willing to spend around 30-45 minutes on a questionnaire was not the easiest task in February, when the field work was conducted. Three arenas were set91 where it was assumed that people would have ‘time’ and ‘motivation’ to elaborate on the questions.
(1) The first arena was the online space, namely Facebook-groups that engages with locals’ issues. Eight questionnaires were received online. (2) The second place where data was collected was a local elderly people’s day-care. Seven people filled in the questionnaire there. (3) The rest of the answerers were collected in local restaurants, bars, cafes and small retail stores. The respondents from this last group are either employees or business owners who commonly do not live in the area but are related to it by working there or locals who live around. The heterogeneity of the profiles of the respondents was the most important criteria for this research. As previously mentioned, the twenty-two random respondents are diverse in terms of age – the youngest respondent was 16-year-old while the oldest 76-year-old – gender, occupation, personal attachment to the neighbourhood and the level of engagement to Jewish culture.
91 The arenas were set after in-depth observation and desk research.
44 The twenty-one questions of the perceptions mapping questionnaire targeting locals can be divided into five subgroups related to: (1) personal information92 – age, relation to Inner-Erzsébetváros (living and/or working there, if working there what exactly), the length of such relation (for how long does the respondent live/ work there); (2) tangible and/or intangible cultural assets/ and areas that represent the best the neighbourhood; impressions and expressions about the neighbourhood; and colour that represent the area93; (3) cultural assets perceived by five senses94; (4) threats to cultural assets by five senses95; (5) misused or abandoned cultural assets and the possible way to valorise such assets; and finally examples of celebrated local cultural policies from the recent past96.
As it is demonstrated in the ‘Findings’ section the answers are not ‘fully’ quantified.
For instance, the most common answers to the question of ‘When you think of the Inner-
Erzsébetváros, what are the adjectives or terms that come to your mind first?’ are highlighted on the diagram(s)97 with bigger font size, whereas the very unique answers are not visualised on the diagram(s). In the case of this thesis the aim of perceptions mapping is to understand a general trend of perceptions. It is important to note that
‘understanding the general trend’ does not entail reduction. In other words, unique answers are part of the bigger picture as well.
92 Age & Relation to the neighbourhood (working there, living there, living and working there) & Length of the relation & Occupation (in case of working in the neighbourhood) 93 When you think of the neighbourhood (Inner-Erzsébetváros), what are the adjectives or terms that come to your mind first? & When you think of the neighbourhood (Inner-Erzsébetváros), what are the tangible and/or intangible cultural assets that shape the local identity and make the neighbourhood unique? & What is the most representative area of your territory’s cultural assets? & If you had to describe this neighbourhood by a colour, what colour would it be? 94 What are the most important cultural assets identifiable through your sense of sight / taste / touch / smell / hearing? 95 What are the threats hindering cultural assets identifiable through your sense of sight / taste / touch / smell / hearing? 96 According to you, what are the cultural assets (tangible and intangible) that are misused or abandoned? & According to you, how can the cultural assets that should be protected be conserved and revitalised? & Which changes have you found stimulating or revitalized the area according to you? & If you had to describe this neighbourhood by a colour, what colour would it be? 97 Diagram n.1 & n.2 (See: ’Findings’ section)
45 5 Findings
5.1 Stakeholder and expert interviews
The results of the thirteen semi-structured in-depth interviews98 with stakeholders and experts are presented in a form of quotes99. Selected quotes are organized into four groups according to the related research questions. The research questions were not explicitly raised during the interviews. As it is explained in the ‘Methodology’, the interviews were focused on different topics depending on the profile of the interviewee. The interview questions were always revolved around the interviewees’ expertise and/or role in the neighbourhood. Thus, the contexts of the extracted quotes are diverse. The possible answers to the research questions are organized into subgroups. Such classification can be seen as an evaluation of the interviews. The interviews are further elaborated on by the topics of ‘The different narratives of Inner-
Erzsébetváros: The Jewish Quarter and the Party Quarter’ and ‘Authenticity and commodification of culture’ in the ‘Discussion’.
98 See interview questions in the ’Appendix’ 99 The quotes have been translated to English from Hungarian by the author of this thesis.
46 To what extent was the Jewish heritage responsible for the regeneration that Inner-Erzsébetváros has undergone since the 1990 regime change?
- the lack of overall rehabilitation / corrupt privatization / population change:
“In case of Inner-Erzsébetváros neither social nor physical rehabilitation did not happen. The district “It is important to mention the method of [post- municipality has never considered the possibility of socialist] privatization. The buildings were sold by overall rehabilitation.” (L. Polyák, personal selling each apartment independently. As a result, communication, February 11, 2020) the ownership status of the buildings is very fragmented. Thus, the buildings are very difficult “In Inner-Erzsébetváros, the buildings were sold to to renovate. (...) In this situation, it is impossible to private investors who demolished many of them carry out comprehensive urban rehabilitation.” (E. and built new buildings with new functions. This Szívós, personal communication, February 5, is not rehabilitation.” (L. Polyák, personal 2020) communication, February 11, 2020) “(…) ‘Hunvald [former district major] “The Jewish Quarter is a missed opportunity. The corruption machine’100: Municipal property was buildings should have been rehabilitated not privatized by selling buildings at very low prices to demolished. (…) The corrupt local government stooges’ companies, then these companies were played a very significant role in this. If the bought by offshore companies. Finally, the offshore municipality had supported cultural and civil companies sold the buildings to the real investors. activities, the situation would be completely The price gaps were insanely huge. In the end the different today.” (E. Susán, personal municipality received a very low price for the communication, February 3, 2020) buildings and entirely spent that money on the compensation and removal of social housing “The goal of the municipality has always been to tenants. The district municipality sold around push a certain social class out of the area.” (E. fifteen buildings like that and did not generate any Szívós, personal communication, February 5, revenue.” (G. Olt, personal communication, 2020) February 14, 2020)
-rediscovering Jewish heritage:
“I started to research the quarter’s architecture in the area. He suggested to call the area the Old 1996. I didn't call the area a Jewish quarter at that Jewish Quarter of Pest in my research." (A. time. No one did. (...) During my research (1996- Perczel, personal communication, February 19, 1998) I studied the buildings and visited all of 2020) them, it turned out that ‘everybody’ was Jewish (…) every third house had a kosher bakery, kosher “(…) [I]n the 2000s many young people with butchery, home synagogue or prayers’ room (...) It Jewish family heritage became interested in was obvious that the area around the synagogues religion. At that time, Jewish identity was being was exclusively populated by Jews. Fear was one of rediscovered. (…) Jewish revival was in the the reasons why it was not called a Jewish Quarter. atmosphere of the downtown of Budapest.” (E. I talked to Géza Komoróczy101 about how Susán, personal communication, February 3, interesting it is to encounter Jewry everywhere in 2020)
100 http://beszelo.c3.hu/cikkek/ingatlanpanama 101 Komoróczy was a historian focusing on Jewish history.
47 -ruinbars and places of the New Jewish Culture102:
“Szimpla was founded in 2001 by a group of 24- 2001 was a type of event that only 5-10 people were 25-year-old friends. (…) There was no such place really aware of. But, of course, Szimpla became at that time like Szimpla. It was a cultural venue very well-known incredibly fast among with art exhibitions, concerts, parties and also a underground people. In 2006, when Sirály was meeting place for civic organisations. (…) opened, there was already a considerably large Everyone refers to Szimpla as the first ruinbar and group of people, the underground audience of the inventor of the notion ‘ruinbar’ as well. (…) It Szimpla, who were expected to like Sirály as well.” [the notion of ‘ruinbar’] is not the invention of (E. Susán, personal communication, February Szimpla. (…) Some people, most likely journalists, 3, 2020) randomly have started to call Szimpla, and similar places, ruinbars. It makes sense. We serve beers and “(…) [I]n the early period [2000s] most of the the building is ruined. Ruinbar is a simplified term places [‘ruinbars’] were more or less culturally that has become widespread.” (B. Molnár, related to Jewry. (...) These places [‘ruinbars’] personal communication, February 4, 2020) were generally characterized by cultural commitment, reclaiming, and the Jewish cultural “We wanted to create a truly social place. A place aspect. (...) The opening of these places in the that is not only offering drinks, but something Jewish Quarter (…) happened at the same time meaningful. Sirály was very popular since its when the contextualization of the Jewish Quarter opening. The opening was a relatively big event. itself (see the program of ÓVÁS!) was initiated.” So, not 10, but more than 100 people were there at (Á. Schönberger, personal communication, the very first night. The opening of Szimpla in February 13, 2020)
How does the Jewish heritage contribute to the present-day character of Inner- Erzsébetváros?
-tourism that is related to Jewish heritage:
“The MAZSIHISZ103 has been organizing tourism “90% of the tourists are non-Jewish. They do not activities for about 20 years. We coordinate the know a lot about Jewry, the religion, the sacred tourism of the Dohány Street Synagogue complex. services, the culture. They don’t know the history Until 2017, this work was done by a private of Jews, or not correctly.” (I. Róna, personal company. Since then, managing tourism has been communication, February 17, 2020) our own responsibility. (…) It [managing tourism] makes us financially independent from “80% of them [tourists] are non-Jewish and almost the state.” (I. Róna, personal communication, none of them are Hungarians.” (A. Horváth, February 17, 2020) personal communication, February 10, 2020)
102New Jewish Culture: See Susán (2017) “After the fall of the iron curtain in 1989, Jewish life quickly started to be rebuilt in postcommunist Hungary, now host to the largest Jewish population in Central Europe. The next decade was devoted to the (re)construction of the institutional system (schools, synagogues, and welfare), and to the first steps towards facing the difficult past of the Shoah. With the coming of age of the younger generations around the millennium, this initial phase of revival was followed by a new trend of expressive ethnicity and the cult of being different, with the motto: ‘It is cool to be Jewish; it is cool to be different’.” (Susán, 2017, p. 1.) “It [Inner-Erzsébetváros] was a place where a Hungarian Jewish counterculture emerged side-to-side with the not specifically Jewish alternative cultural scene in Budapest.” (Susán, 2017, p. 1.) 103 Federation of Hungarian Jewish Communities
48
“Israelis are usually surprised by the number of “It is true that there are many tourists, but we non-Jews who are interested in the history of the [Frőhlich Pastry Shop] also have many locals, Jewish Quarter.” (A. Horváth, personal Jewish and non-Jewish customers. (…) The most communication, February 10, 2020) important thing both for tourists and locals is the quality of our pastries not the rabbinical kosher “Tourists, who do not come to this area to learn certificate104.” (E. Frőhlich, personal more about Jewry, do not visit us [Csányi5 Jewish communication, February 18, 2020) Museum and Cultural Centre]." (Z. Lefkovics “[Have you changed something in your menu personal communication, February 7, 2020) in order to serve tourists better?] No. (…) Obviously there are little changes, but we believe that we should show them the true ourselves, not “We only let people in at prayer services who something they already know. We do not want to obviously come to pray not to take photos, who conform to the needs. (…) Tourists usually want to wear proper clothes, for example. (…) Tourism experience authenticity.” (E. Frőhlich, personal can’t disturb religious practice. For tourists the communication, February 18, 2020) synagogue is closed on every Saturday and on Jewish holidays. On Fridays the synagogue closes “90% of our customers are non-Hungarians, they earlier in order to prepare it for Kabbalat Shabbat. are either Hasidic Jews from the US or Israeli (…) There are no conflicts [between prayers and religious or non-religious tourists.” (D. Preiszler, tourists] because they do not meet at all. (…) They personal communication, February 5, 2020) [prayers] are proud of their synagogue. They are glad that so many tourists would like to visit it.” (I. “Tourism does not automatically turn a place into Róna, personal communication, February 17, ‘Disneyland’. (…) It should be prevented to turn 2020) Inner-Erzsébetváros into a Jewish ‘Disneyland’. There is a large Jewish community in Budapest and “Sometimes with Israeli tourists there are a lot of people (…) to whom Jewish culture is a problems. My brother, who is the rabbi there personal issue. A place becomes ‘Disneyland’ only [Dohány Street Synagogue], once said to an if there is no community, nobody who consider Israeli tourist, who took photos during a ceremony, local culture a personal issue” (E. Szívós, ‘you are Israeli, but definitely not Jewish’. Since personal communication, February 5, 2020) then, we use this phrase a lot.” (E. Frőhlich, personal communication, February 18, 2020)
-Jewish inhabitants:
“Jewish families moved in because of the proximity neighbourhood.” (D. Preiszler, personal of the synagogue, kosher shops, schools.” (Z. communication, February 5, 2020) Lefkovics personal communication, February 7, 2020) “The Jewish population has been aging. Today, the Jewish population of the quarter is much smaller. “Most of the Jewish population of Budapest live (…) Most of the Orthodox families live in the elsewhere. I live in Újlipótváros as most of my quarter because all the facilities are in walking friends. (…) The Orthodox community lives in the distance. Although, the number of these families Jewish Quarter. They [Orthodox Jewish people] are very small. The very recognizable Jewish people moved in mostly from abroad, or they are in the neighborhood are members of the Hasidic Hungarians who did not grew up in the
104 The pastry shop has become glatt kosher and gained the rabbinical certificate in 2013. https://zsido.com/koser_a_frohlich/
49 community. They are all tourists.” (E. Frőhlich, personal communication, February 18, 2020)
-lack of places of the New Jewish Culture:
“When we were 18-20-year-old, we partied here [in was not usual in the 2000s. (…) The progressive the Jewish Quarter] a lot. At that time there were cultural character of the Jewish Quarter has ceased only Szóda and Szimpla, nowadays there are to exist or has been reduced to few bars and cafes.” thousands of party places here. At that time these (Á. Schönberger, personal communication, were the ‘Jewish bars’.” (D. Preiszler, personal February 13, 2020) communication, February 5, 2020) “Such a shame that the quarter has turned into a “[Is it a problem that Sirály and similar places party district. When Sirály and Szóda were still had been pushed out of the quarter?] It's here, this area had a very different atmosphere. It absolutely a problem. The problem is not that many was nice to visit those places. Moreover, they new places have been opened, but that places with engaged in cultural issues, lectures, presentations progressive Jewish attitude have been completely and debates were organized there around Jewish pushed out of Inner-Erzsébetváros. Instead, there culture. So, there were a rich and lively cultural are institutional initiatives (by the municipality life. In my opinion, such cultural facilities are very and by religious Jewish institutions) to represent much needed today.” (E. Frőhlich, personal and maintain Jewish culture in the Jewish Quarter. communication, February 18, 2020) This is basically a new form of representation that
-Party Quarter VS Jewish Quarter: “It’s not a problem. One happens during the day “A common opinion is that party tourists use the the other at night. Although, it is true that dirt and area as it was a public toilet. People living here noise disturb locals a lot.” (Z. Lefkovics personal can’t live a normal nightlife because of the lack of communication, February 7, 2020) security. They can’t even sleep well at night because of the noise. Inhabitants of the Jewish “Miklós Konrád has a chapter in the book called Quarter hate party tourism so much. On the other Ami látható és ami láthatatlan [Visible and hand, people who don’t live here love it. Jews, who invisible, a book about Jewish heritage in the live somewhere else, are proud that so many people Jewish Quarter] about the party and leisure are interested in the Jewish Quarter even if they function of the Jewish Quarter before the WWII. only come here to party. I am sure that every This area has always been famous for its nightlife. tourist is aware of the Jewish heritage of this area.” Konrád is not as angry at the Party Quarter as (I. Róna, personal communication, February many others. He argues that it has always been a 17, 2020) hectic and vivid area of the city.” (A. Perczel, personal communication, February 19, 2020)
What does the name ‘Jewish Quarter’ represent? To what extent can Inner- Erzsébetváros be considered Jewish?
- Jewish identity / heritage: graspable (...) It [Jewish Quarter] is a space that “For a Jewish cultural organization, the Jewish gives the feeling that Jews do exist. The Jewish Quarter has a strategic importance. Meaning, the Quarter can be understood as a representation of Jewish Quarter serves as a reference point. It is the community. It provides a grasp to the easy to identify with such reference point. (…) The community members as well as to the outsiders. act of referring to the place as a ‘Jewish Quarter’, This is, in a sense, an imagination, since it is not creates a space that is tangible, physically real and necessarily true that Jews live in the Jewish
50 Quarter, but it is true that most representative spaces of the Jewish institutional system (offices, [How does Sirály relate to the Jewish synagogues) are located in the Jewish Quarter. In Quarter?] addition, the history of the ghetto also serves as a “It was a coincidence that there was an empty reference point for the present-day definition of the property there [Király Street in the Jewish Jewish Quarter. (...) I think the Jewish Quarter as Quarter]. As a radical Jewish youth cultural such is a strategic idea. Regardless of what has been organization, MAROM wanted to embody the said, obviously calling the area Jewish Quarter is criticism of the current institutional system. It was also a city marketing tool.” (Á. Schönberger, a perfect coincidence that we [Sirály, MAROM] personal communication, February 13, 2020) found ourselves in a squatted building in the Jewish Quarter. We wanted to create a space that “(…) [T]he community needs a space where its reflects on Jewish cultural heritage.” (E. Susán, members can feel safe. (...) From the aspect of personal communication, February 3, 2020) construction of space, the community is trying to create a space for itself. (...) It is easy to argue with “My objection, as a historian, is that Inner- it [Jewish Quarter], because it is not an inherited Erzsébetváros was never purely Jewish. On space, but a continuously constructed space. (...) average, half of the area's population was Jewish. The basic function of ‘Jewish space’ is defense, even My problem is that the Jewish Quarter concept though there is no specific threat. (...) In its present overshadows everything else. The former cultural state, the Jewish Quarter is a constructed space. and religious mix of the area has been largely lost Multiple actors are fighting for occupying it.” (Á. in the Jewish Quarter narrative. This narrative Schönberger, personal communication, suggests that it is a purely Jewish area without February 13, 2020) others or others are not important. I think the tradition of coexistence of different cultures and “This was the place (space) where young Jews religions is the real value of Inner-Erzsébetváros.” wanted to be. It became a self-organizing force of (E. Szívós, personal communication, February the Jewish Quarter. Due to the lack of these places 5, 2020) [ruinbars] I would no longer call this area the Jewish Quarter. Calling it the Jewish Quarter “I call this area ghetto just like my friends. would come out so stupid and it would be ironic.” Holocaust does not make us wince.” (D. Preiszler, (Á. Schönberger, personal communication, personal communication, February 5, 2020) February 13, 2020)
- marketing strategy:
“We don’t want to create a brand from the Jewish “Today, in the Jewish Quarter, reflection on Jewry Quarter and the ghetto. It would be disrespectful.” is very superficial. Jewry appears at a commodified (B. Szücs, personal communication, February level. For example, there's a place called Brooklyn. 26, 2020) Another odd thing is selling Matzo Cake all year long (at Kőleves Restaurant). Matzo cake is “‘Jewishness’ is a possible marketing strategy for traditionally eaten only once a year. (…) More businesses in the neighbourhood. Why wouldn’t it organizations like MAROM are needed in the be. (...) It is not a huge problem for the community. neighbourhood. Such organizations could help The rabbi, however, strictly forbids the promotion businesses that are located in the Jewish Quarter to of non-kosher restaurants [Jewish style be able to deal with Jewish heritage in a meaningful restaurants] for MAZSIHISZ.” (I. Róna, way.” (E. Susán, personal communication, personal communication, February 17, 2020) February 3, 2020)
51 5.2 Preliminary research
Before the process of perceptions mapping, four maps105 were made to show the (1) urban context of the case study area, (2) the ‘borders’ that define the Old Jewish
Quarter, (3) the cultural capital embedded in the area and (4) places that can confirm the narrative of the Party Quarter. The maps are presented together with photos.106
105 The maps are not following the visualization method of the CLIC project. 106 The photos were taken Augustus 2019 and February 2020. Some of the photos were found online, in such cases the source is indicated in the caption. Therefore, if not specified otherwise, the pictures were taken by the author.
52
Inner-city districts Budapest on the Pest side of the Danube
Map n.1 presents the urban context of Inner-Erzsébetváros (grey dashed line). Inner-
Erzsébetváros is located within the buffer zone (blue dotted line) of UNESCO Cultural
Heritage Landscape (blue). In other words, the area is officially considered to be significant in terms of built cultural heritage. In addition, the map shows the district boarders (grey line) and the number of the districts (Roman numerals).
Inner-Erzsébetváros: Invisible borders
Map n.2 of the preliminary research focuses on the ‘invisible borders’ that define the case study area as the Old Jewish Quarter. As it was mentioned before, Inner-
Erzsébetváros (dark grey) is the part of the 7th District of Budapest which is located on the inner side of the Grand Boulevard. The borders of the 7th District are ‘invisible’, meaning that only by walking on the streets it is not possible to notice them. The mentioned UNESCO buffer zone is cutting across the area which is also an ‘invisible borderline’. The area became the buffer zone of Andrássy Avenue in 2002 (A. Perczel, personal communication, February 19, 2020). In the official documentation of the
UNESCO buffer zone the area was called ‘Jewish Quarter’ for the first time by the state of Hungary (A. Perczel, personal communication, February 19, 2020). In addition, the border of the Second World War ghetto (November 29, 1944 - January 17, 1945) is also indicated on the map. The present-day name ‘Jewish Quarter’ is not unrelated to the fact that the ghetto was located in the area (Á. Schönberger, personal communication,
February 13, 2020). Lastly, the three synagogues located in the area are shown on the map. The small area that such synagogues determine is often called ‘Jewish triangle’.
53
54 Inner-Erzsébetváros: Cultural capital
Map n.3 shows the cultural capital embedded in the area107. The information was collected online108 and finetuned during the field research109. The mapped elements are divided into five subgroups: (1) buildings that are officially declared as cultural heritage by the state, (2) Jewish spaces: synagogues, Jewish religious institutions,
Jewish schools, kosher restaurants, pastry shops and markets, Jewish ritual bath
(mikveh), hotels recommended by the Orthodox Jewish community to Jewish tourists,
Jewish cultural institutions (museums and cultural centres) and the locations of several Jewish cultural festivals, (3) spaces of remembrance: Holocaust memorials, plaques as memorials of Holocaust victims and heroes, stolpersteine110 (stumbling stones) also as memorial of Jewish families killed in the Holocaust, and a street mural as a memorial of Spanish diplomats saving thousands of Jewish people life’s in
Budapest111, (4) cultural institution: museums, galleries, university, theatres, libraries and cultural centres, (5) places and spaces that are important in terms of tourism: landmarks and places of nightlife based of TripAdvisor’s rankings and a route of a guided tour. In the context of cultural capital places of nightlife are the odd ones out.
Such places are on the same map in order to get a full picture of the most recommended places for and by tourists on TripAdvisor. All in all, this map shows cultural capital that consists of cultural assets and cultural resources (Pillai, 2013).
Cultural assets are both tangible aspects of culture – built cultural heritage – and intangible aspects of culture – places and spaces where cultural activities take place and/ or places and spaces that have cultural significance. Cultural resources are assets that are responsible for the production and transmission of culture (Pillai, 2013) –
107 The method of mapping cultural capital embedded in the area are developed by CLIC, called ‘Economic Landscape’ mapping. The maps of ‘preliminary research’ produced to this thesis are influenced by CLIC’s ‘Economic Landscape’ mapping, but do not follow the same methodology. 108 Google Maps; Geoportal.budapest.hu; websites of the Hungarian Jewish religious creeds; book: G. Török, Ami látható és ami láthatatlan: Erzsébetváros zsidó öröksége [What is visible and what is invisible: Jewish heritage of Erzsébetváros]; TripAdvisor 109 In-depth observation & attendance of guided tours targeting tourists 110 http://www.stolpersteine.eu/en/home/ 111 http://www.exteriores.gob.es/Embajadas/BUDAPEST/en/Pages/inicio.aspx
55 cultural institutions and places of Jewish culture. The aim of mapping the cultural capital of Inner-Erzsébetváros is not to make distinction between cultural assets and resources, rather to provide a full picture of the area’s cultural activities and places that are somewhat significant for the Jewish community or related to such culture. In addition to Pillai’s definition, cultural capital is also an economic term, defined as the
“city’s cultural potential made of several kinds of cultural assets that hold or yield a flow of goods and services over time” (Throsby, 2001, 2002 as cited in Ost & Saleh, 2021, p. 3).
56
57 Inner-Erzsébetváros: The Party Quarter
Map n.4 is dedicated to the Party Quarter112. Referring to Inner-Erzsébetváros, as the
Party Quarter of Budapest has been widespread in the last 6-8 years. In this map facilities – pubs & bars and nightclubs – that underline the Party Quarter narrative are marked. In addition, the so-called ‘ruinbars’ (courtyards that were turned into bars) are also mapped. ‘Ruinbar’ as a name has stuck to ‘bars that were a bit more than bars’ in the 2000s (Molnár, personal communication, February 4, 2020). In the 2000s empty
(and ruined) courtyards were regenerated by young entrepreneurs as temporary bars and places with a wide range of cultural activities. As it was mentioned before, some places were known as ‘Jewish bars’113 (Preiszler, personal communication, February 5,
2020), but this map does not distinguish between Jewish and non-Jewish bars. For today, the Jewish or non-Jewish cultural ‘added value’ of ‘ruinbars’ have been vanished. The name ‘ruinbar’ is mostly used as a marketing strategy. The map shows contemporary ‘ruinbars’ and places that do no operate anymore. In addition to the traditionally outdoor ruinbars, famous (roofed) bars with cultural profile are also mapped. Finally, the unofficial ‘border’ of the Party Quarter is indicated. The Party
Quarter narrative is undoubtedly understandable by comparing the size of the area to the number of facilities that cater night-time activities.
112 Source of this map: (1) academic literature: Keresztély, K. (2009). Wasting memories - gentrification vs. urban values in the Jewish neighbourhood of Budapest; & Lugosi, P., Bell, D., & Lugosi, K. (2010). Hospitality, Culture and Regeneration: Urban Decay, Entrepreneurship and the ‘Ruin’ Bars of Budapest; (2) online desk research; (3) in-depth observation 113 The most well-known ‘Jewish bar’ meaning that it is referred in academic and non-academic articles was Sirály. Sirály (2007-2013) had a strong Jewish cultural profile.
58
59 5.3 Perceptions mapping
The results of the perceptions mapping questionnaires114 are visualised on five diagrams and three maps115 and related photos116– two maps and two diagrams are dedicated to locals’ perceptions and one map and one diagram shows the perceptions
/ first impressions of tourists about Inner-Erzsébetváros. In addition, two diagrams show the profile of the respondents, one for locals and another for tourists. The first two diagrams are dedicated to ‘attributed adjectives and colours’ of the neighbourhood perceived by tourists and locals. The first and the second maps showcase the ‘most representative areas, places and cultural assets’ according to tourists and locals. On these maps the Jewish and the non-Jewish places and cultural assets are separated. The third map is dedicated to both the perceived cultural assets by five senses and threats to such assets also by five senses according to locals. The last diagram show locals’ proposals of re-enacting misused cultural assets of the neighbourhood.
The maps have been made to fit to the research questions ‘How does the Jewish heritage contribute to the present-day character of Inner-Erzsébetváros?’ and ‘How do locals and tourists perceive tangible and intangible cultural assets of Inner-Erzsébetváros? & Which tangible and intangible cultural assets of Inner-Erzsébetváros are the most relevant for locals and tourists?’. In other words, as the maps show both Jewish and non-Jewish cultural assets and related perceptions, the relevance of Jewish heritage can be deduced from the visualised information. As it will be presented, not only the relevance of Jewish
114 The written version of the results is in the Appendix. Such document shows all the answers. The great majority of the answers are visualised on the maps. Due to readability less relevant and less frequent answers are not visible on the maps. The document also presents how the interview questions relate to the final maps. 115 The maps are not following the visualization method of the CLIC project. 116 The photos were taken Augustus 2019 and February 2020. Some of the photos were found online, in such cases the source is indicated in the caption.
60 heritage, but also the tension between the narrative of the Party Quarter and the
Jewish Quarter is apparent on the maps.
Profile of respondents
The diagram summarizes the profiles of locals who filled in the questionnaire. As it is presented, the twenty-two respondents differ from each other in terms of gender, age, relation to Inner-Erzsébetváros and occupation. The second diagram is about the twelve tourists who participated in the perceptions mapping research. The twelve respondents have nine different nationalities and also differ from each other in terms of gender, age and knowledge about Inner-Erzsébetváros. As it is indicated on the diagram, the great majority of the respondents know that the area is the Jewish
Quarter, but they do not plan to visit any Jewish related facilities. All in all, as they have moderate knowledge about the neighbourhood, their perceptions can be seen as first impressions or knowledge acquired from travel guides. Unfortunately, none of the respondents are Jewish visitors who particularly interested in Jewish cultural heritage. Such point of view is missing from the perceptions mapping research.
61 Attributed adjectives and colours
The diagrams are about the respondents’ general impressions of the neighbourhood in the form of attributed adjectives and colours. The size of the words indicates the frequency of the answers (see: Appendix). There are adjectives attributed to the neighbourhood by both groups of respondents such as ‘historical’, ‘colourful’,
‘cultural’, ‘touristic’, ‘lively’, ‘beautiful’ and ‘international/multicultural’. It is striking that locals attributed a number of negative terms to the place such as ‘tragic’, ‘noisy’,
‘crowded’, ‘problematic’ and ‘smelly’. The adjective ‘tragic’ refers to the history of the
Holocaust, whereas the rest of the adjectives are related to the tension between the
Party Quarter (party tourism) and locals. It seems that tourists themselves do not
62 notice such problems or did not want to express their opinions about ‘dirt’, ‘noise’ and
‘smell’. The attributed colours are very diverse. It is very interesting that the two opposite sides of the spectrum were attributed most frequently to the place: the respondents have chosen ‘grey’ five times and ‘rainbow’ six times as the ‘colour of
Inner-Erzsébetváros’.
Most representative places and cultural assets
Map n.1 & n.2 show the most representative places and both tangible and intangible cultural assets of the area. Jewish and non-Jewish cultural assets are marked with different colours. The sizes of the ‘dots’ marking specific cultural assets refer to the frequency of the given answers117. Since not all the mentioned assets have a specific location, some of the answers are written on the map without indicating their location.
These assets are either tangible such as ‘hidden backyards’ or intangible like
‘traditional wear of Orthodox Jewish people’. Cultural festivals as intangible cultural assets are marked on the map by their locations. The number of cultural assets that are related to Jewish heritage is higher than other mentioned assets, especially when only the specific assets are taken into consideration. As it was predictable, tourists only noted cultural assets that are highlighted by tour guides (see map n.3. cultural capital). It is interesting to see that both tourists and locals named the ruinbar Szimpla as an important cultural place, although tourists attributed more importance to the place118. It can be concluded that Jewish cultural assets are the most relevant in the area both by tourists and locals. Although, a landmark facility of Szimpla and the
Party Quarter as such are also identified to be representative assets. Locals named the
‘territory of the Party Quarter’ as one of the most representative areas of the neighbourhood and tourists mentioned that the ‘way of traditional Jewish culture coexist with contemporary youth culture’ makes the area especially unique.
117 See exact numbers in the Appendix 118The reason behind it most likely is that tourists’ questionnaires were distributed at Szimpla.
63
64
65 Perceptions mapping by five senses
Map n.3 is dedicated to the results of perceptions mapping by five senses. The respondents (only locals, not tourists) were asked ‘what do they perceive as cultural assets by sight, taste, touch, smell and hearing’ and ‘what do they perceive as threats to those cultural assets by sight, taste, touch, smell and hearing’. The results are presented on the same map. The map does not indicate which assets (or threats) are
Jewish and non-Jewish. In the description the mapped assets are divided into such two groups.
66
67 Cultural assets perceived by five senses (light grey: not on the map):
Related to Jewish heritage: Not related to Jewish heritage:
SIGHT: Great Synagogue; Rumbach Street Synagogue; SIGHT: Pekáry House; gate on Madách Square; murals Kazinczy Street Synagogue; Wallenberg Holocaust on firewalls; Szimpla; unique/eclectic architecture; Memorial; Karl Lutz Memorial; Ghetto Wall Memorial; beautiful doors of the buildings; facades; city lights; Jewish Museum; Solet Festival; Judafest; traditional ruinbars; cafes and bars; small stores; exhibitions; wear of Orthodox Jewish people. vintage clothing stores.
TASTE: Frőhlich Pastry Shop; Hanna Restaurant; TASTE: Bors street food buffet; quince cheese at the kosher butcher shop; Kőleves Restaurant; Kádár market; chimney cake (Hungarian pastry); lángos Restaurant; flódni (Jewsish pastry); matzo ball soup (Hungarian dish); gulyás (Hungarian dish); spitzer (Jewish dish); shakshuka (Jewish dish); hummus; (vine with sparkling water); flat white at Stika; rugelach (Jewsish pastry); Jewish restaurants (kosher sourdough bread; gyros and non-kosher); Jewish pastry shops; kosher food; Hummus Bar. TOUCH: Bors street food buffet; velvet theatre chairs; clothes in designer stores; puppies in the TOUCH: facade of the Great Synagogue; touch of Star neighbourhood; vine glasses; cold beer glasses; frozen of David on certain facades. shot glasses; facades; traditional Hungarian clothes at souvenir shops SMELL: Great Synagogue; Kőleves Restaurant; Jewish dishes; flódni. SMELL: old books; hidden backyards; different restaurant from all over the world; chimney cake; cafés, HEARING: cantor at the Great Synagogue; prayers sing bars, ruinbars; smell of buildings on Sundays when together at the synagogues; tour guides; Hebrew families have lunch together; linden trees; antique language. stores; street food such as gyros; bakeries; mulled vine; Ramenka (Ramen restaurant); alcoholic smell of tables at pubs.
HEARING: Gozsdu Courtyard; Mika Tivadar life music club; sounds of different languages; parties; tourists; church bells; live music from bars; stand-up comedy; concerts; trolleybus; pigeons
Threats to cultural assets perceived by five senses (light grey: not on the map):
Related to the Party Quarter: Not related to the Party Quarter:
SIGHT: Party Quarter dominates over the Jewish SIGHT: newly built too big buildings; vandalism; Quarter; vomit; urine; too many tourists; vandalism by tagging; trash; excrement; food on the ground; lack of foreign party tourists; fake drug dealers; broken glasses; public toilettes; cars; closure of well-known cultural alcohol; newly constructed hotels. places; homeless people; neglected city furniture; dogs’ turd; neglected facades. TASTE: bad quality alcohol; bad quality food for tourists; fast food; this neighbourhood is all about TASTE: fake Jewish restaurants; lack of traditional ‘feeding’ tourists and serving them alcoholic beverages. tastes.
SMELL: urine; vomit; alcohol; bad quality food; smoke; TOUCH: vandalism; trash; neglected facades; electric weed. scooters; neglected city benches; dirty and sticky surfaces. HEARING: tourists pulling their suitcases; drunken tourists shouting; drunken people; voice of fake drug SMELL: smog; trash; excrement; dogs’ waste; dirty dealers; crowds in front of bars; loud music; tourists. streets; smell of homeless people; smell of gasoline; smell of eastern spices. HEARING: car traffic; constructions; homeless people begging
68 Such list of perceived cultural assets is underlining that culture is a much diverse term.
Even though the definition of ‘cultural asset’119 was not introduced to the respondents, the answers clearly show that the term itself is inclusive. In other words, the perceived cultural assets are Jewish & non-Jewish, historical & contemporary, tangible & intangible and specific & general. Almost half of the answers are somewhat related to the Jewish heritage. There is a striking difference between the Jewish and the non-
Jewish assets: the non-Jewish assets are general which means that those answers do not have specific locations. The non-specific assets are related to the architecture of the neighbourhood, to certain typical Hungarian dishes and also to the features of the
Party Quarter. It is interesting that partying, music, consuming alcoholic beverages and even tourism are considered to be cultural assets.
All of the elements120 that have been identified as threats to cultural assets are without exact location. Most of the defined threats and anomalies are clearly related to the
Party Quarter phenomenon. For instance, ‘bad quality alcohol’, ‘vandalism by foreign party tourists’, ‘vomit’, ‘urine’ and ‘crowds in front of bars’ are some of the mentioned elements that are the outcome of unregulated night-time services. The respondents even notified that the ‘Party Quarter dominates over the Jewish Quarter’. Taken into consideration that such statement was given in the context of ‘threats to cultural assets’, it can be assumed that the Party Quarter itself is the major threat to the neighbourhood as a culturally significant place. In addition to the unwanted by- products of party places, the general bad physical condition of the neighbourhood is identified as a threat to cultural assets. Among others, ‘neglected facades’, ‘trash’,
119 Cultural assets are defined by Pillai as “tangible and intangible aspects of culture (historical and current) that have significance for individuals/groups within the community” (2013, p. 5). Janet Pillai’s book – Cultural Mapping: A Guide to Understand Place, Community and Continuity – is considered to be an important literature for perceptions mapping. 120 The most unique answers (said only by one respondent) are not visualised on the map. The reason why most of the perceived cultural assets have been mapped, whereas threats have been left out is because this thesis is more focusing on cultural assets then threats and anomalies around cultural assets. According to the research questions, it is more important to note ‘cultural assets’ than ‘threats to cultural assets’.
69 ‘dogs’ waste’ and ‘new buildings’ were named as threats. It can be assumed that such elements are more general and might even be a problem in other parts of Budapest, whereas anomalies that are related to partying, tourism and party-tourism are special features of Inner-Erzsébetváros.
Locals’ proposals
The last diagram is dedicated to locals’ opinions on how misused cultural assets could be re-enacted. The respondents identified ‘neglected buildings’, ‘traditional urban tissue’ / ‘entire neighbourhood’, ‘public spaces’, ‘older generation’, ‘small stores and workshops’ and the ‘former bar Sirály’ as misused and/or abandoned cultural assets.
In addition, they emphasized that the narrative of the ‘Cultural Quarter’ is abandoned.
The diagram shows the connections between such identified misused cultural assets and the respondent’s suggestions to re-enact them. Among other, the suggestions are
‘renovate buildings’, ‘stop demolitions’, ‘open more cultural institutions instead of pubs’, ‘support existing small businesses and workshops’, ‘enhance open-minded
Jewish identity’. The respondents were also asked to mention cultural policies / changes that they found stimulating from recent times. Only few answers were received to that question such as the ‘establishment of Csányi Jewish Museum and
Cultural Centre’ and the ‘protection of cultural heritage buildings by ÓVÁS!
Association’. The possible relation between the respondents’ suggestions and the celebrated cultural policies are indicated on the diagram. To conclude, almost all of the elements listed on the diagram are general, which is the reason why they are not presented in a form of a map. The identified specific elements are related to Jewish culture or heritage such as Csányi Jewish Museum, Sirály and ÓVÁS!. The tension between the cultural narrative and the party narrative of the neighbourhood that was detected by ‘perceptions mapping by five senses’ are less apparent here, although the answers of ‘no more pubs’ and ‘surveillance against vandalism’ are somewhat recall the previous results.
70
71 6 Discussion
6.1 The different narratives of Inner-Erzsébetváros: The Jewish
Quarter and the Party Quarter
Inner-Erzsébetváros is called both the Jewish Quarter (sometimes the Old Jewish
Quarter) and the Party Quarter of Budapest. The perceptions mapping research has clearly proved the incorporation of such narratives in the everyday vocabulary. As one of the interviewees noted “one happens during the day, the other at night”121 which literally means that the two narratives have nothing to do with each other. The Jewish
Quarter itself is defined in various ways. Most of the interviewees have agreed that
Inner-Erzsébetváros is the Jewish Quarter because: “Three synagogues are located there in very close proximity to each other like nowhere else in Budapest (...) The Jewish Museum, the Jewish Archives and many Jewish religious and cultural institutions are there.” Ádám
Schönberger, president of MAROM Jewish Youth Organization, has defined the
Jewish Quarter as a constructed space. “The Jewish community needs a place where its members feel ‘safe’. The community is constantly trying to construct a space for itself. It is easy to argue with the concept of the Jewish Quarter, because it is not an inherited space, it is a continuously constructed space. Even though there is no specific threat, the basic function of the Jewish space is defence. (…) For a Jewish cultural organization, the Jewish Quarter has a strategic importance. The act of referring to the neighbourhood as a Jewish Quarter creates a space that is tangible, real and graspable. In other words, it [the Jewish Quarter] is a space that gives the impression that Jews exist. The Jewish Quarter can be understood as a space of representation for the community members as well as for outsiders. It is an ‘imaginary space’,
121 The identity of the interviewee revealed in case it is necessary to understand the quote. In this case the identity of the interviewee is not necessarily relevant.
72 since it is not necessarily true that Jews live in the Jewish Quarter. Although, most of the representative spaces of the Jewish institutional system (offices, synagogues) are located in the
Jewish Quarter. In addition, the history of the ghetto also serves as a reference point for the present-day definition. (...) I think the Jewish Quarter as such is a strategic idea. Regardless of what has been said, obviously calling the area ‘Jewish Quarter’ is also a city marketing tool”
(Á. Schönberger, personal communication, February 13, 2020). It is important to mention here, that Inner-Erzsébetváros is home to Orthodox Jewish families122 living in the neighbourhood because of the close proximity of their institutions – among others the synagogue, the ritual bath, school and kosher markets (map n.3 of the preliminary research). Whereas the majority of (secular) Jewish population123 live in the 13th District (Újlipótváros) of Budapest (Gantner and Kovács, 2008). All in all, the size of the Jewish population of the neighbourhood is small124.
A strong hypothesis was formulated based on literature review, online desk research and media analysis that the two narratives of Inner-Erzsébetváros are very distinct from each other as the places of the Jewish Quarter and the Party Quarter do not cater
– and do not wish to cater – the same audience. The hypothesis is also underlined by the fact that the conflict between stakeholders behind the hospitality venues – bars, clubs and the related catering industry – and local residents is a hot topic in the
Hungarian media. Such conflict is very much perceivable through tensed discussions
122 Member of the Jewish community: “[Who lives in the quarter?] The Jewish population has been aging. Today, the Jewish population of the quarter is much smaller. Most of the Orthodox families live in the quarter because all the facilities are in walking distance. Although, the number of these families is very small. The very recognisable members of the Hasidic community spending time in the quarter are all tourists.”
“Most of the Jewish population of Budapest live elsewhere. The Orthodox people live in the Jewish Quarter came to live here from abroad or they did not grow up here. We live in Újlipótváros as most of my friends. My friends and I live almost on the same street.” (D. Preiszler, personal communication, February 5, 2020). 123 Member of the Jewish community: “The Jewish community in Újlipótváros is a cultural, not a religious one.” 124 “The area could have become a 'real' Jewish quarter if there had been massive influx of Jewish population. Actually, some Jewish families did move in the quarter. Among my interviewees, there was foreigner who chose to live in Inner-Erzsébetváros because of its Jewish heritage” (E. Szívós, personal communication, February 5, 2020).
73 among others in local’s Facebook groups. “The quarter is polarized which is unrelated to the Jewish heritage. (…) Nobody talks to anybody. They are shouting to each other. (…) The tone some people are using is nonsense [in Facebook groups]”. Despite the fact that some of the interviewees noted125 that the conflictual situation is intensified by the media biased towards locals, the night-time noise, dirt and flock of party tourists are undeniably bothering the local residents. In this conflict the voices of Jewish institutions located in Inner-Erzsébetváros are kind of absent126 which can be proved by the personal opinions127 of the interviewees who are working at such institutions.
“[What is your opinion about the Party Quarter?] “Ambivalent. On the one hand, we extremely resent it. Let me give you an example, the common opinion is that party tourists use the neighbourhood as a public toilet. People living here can’t live a normal nightlife because of the lack of security. They can’t even sleep well at night because of the noise. Inhabitants of the
Jewish Quarter hate party tourism so much. On the other hand, people who don’t live here love it. Jews, who live somewhere else, are proud that so many people are interested in the Jewish
Quarter even if they only come here to party. I am sure that every tourist is aware of the Jewish heritage of this area.” “[The quarter is labelled as a Jewish Quarter and a Party Quarter.
Is it a problem?] It’s not a problem. One happens during the day the other at night. Although, it is true that dirt and noise disturb locals a lot”. In addition, according to one of the interviewees’ opinion, Jewish families do not ‘fight’ against the Party Quarter: “The religious families [Orthodox Jewish families] living here have all accepted that this area is the Party Quarter of Budapest. There are no conflicts, although they have difficulties to sleep.”
The draft conclusion of the aforementioned quotes by leaders of Jewish institutions and members of the Jewish community is that the Party Quarter and the Jewish
125 Communication manager of Szimpla Bar: “The nightlife of the Party Quarter is much more consolidated then one could imagine only by reading the news. I noticed that the media often uses the same photos to illustrate how ‘unbearable’ the situation is. (…) It is a fact that there is much less crime on lively and light streets. So, the often-depicted image that security is terrible here is simply not true” (B. Molnár, personal communication, February 4, 2020). 126 Based on preliminary online desk research and interviews 127 The official standpoint of the institutions was not mentioned by the interviewees when the conversation was revolved around the topic of the Party Quarter.
74 Quarter are distinct entities128 and their relationship is “ambivalent”. Whereas the result of perceptions mapping is straightforward. The respondents of the perceptions mapping questionnaire were asked to mention ‘threats and anomalies that are hindering’ the cultural assets of the neighbourhood. As it is presented in the ‘Findings’ section, the majority of the cultural assets defined by locals are somewhat related to
Jewish heritage and the majority of the perceived threats are by-products of the unregulated night-time industry in the neighbourhood. Considering the results of the interviews and perceptions mapping, it can be concluded that defining the ‘Party
Quarter’ and the ‘Jewish Quarter’ is necessary when the relation between the two phenomena is discussed. The present-day Party Quarter, as an agglomeration of night clubs and related side issues, is perceived as a threat to the physical condition of the built heritage. On the other hand, based on the interviews, the Party Quarter, as a narrative, is not much of a threat to the Jewish Quarter. In other words, “these controversial narratives show how complex the contemporary situation is. In my opinion it is important to maintain these different narratives because it would not work trying to force only one of them. It is a complex area” (L. Polyák, personal communication, February 11, 2020).
All in all, the problem is not the multi-narrative of Inner-Erzsébetváros, rather the lack of night-time regulations, discourse between the involved stakeholders and the lack of planning for tourism (Pinke-Sziva et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2017).
Despite today’s experience, the evolution of the Party Quarter is not unrelated to the
Jewish heritage. Considering the pre-WWII function of the neighbourhood, it was a place full of life and even nightlife. “Miklós Konrád has a chapter129 (…) about the party and leisure function of the Jewish Quarter before the WWII. This area has always been famous for its nightlife. Konrád is not as angry at the Party Quarter as many others. He argues that
128 It can be asked what does Party Quarter and Jewish Quarter mean in this context? A narrative? A geographical area? Certain facilities? The answer depends on the interviewees’ viewpoints. 129 Konrád, M. (2018). Brettlik, zengerájok, orfeumok. [Cabarets, Cafe-chantants, orpheums] In G. Török, Ami látható és ami láthatatlan: Erzsébetváros zsidó öröksége [what is visible and what is invisible: Jewish heritage of Erzsébetváros] (2nd ed., pp. 169-178). Budapest
75 it has always been a hectic and vivid area of the city.” (A. Perczel, personal communication,
February 19, 2020). “[Can you please explain how does Szimpla deal with the intangible heritage of the quarter130?] Inner-Erzsébetváros has always been a very lively and vivid area of Budapest. It was full of small stores and places where nightlife was flourishing. Unconsciously, Szimpla has brought this atmosphere back while meeting the needs of the market” (B. Molnár, personal communication, February 4, 2020). In addition to such heritage, the more recent history of ‘ruinbars’ is also related to the Jewish heritage. As it was discussed before, the early 2000s, the period of liberal laissez- faire urban regeneration (Kovács et al., 2015), were stained by corruption and the lack of sensitivity towards the built heritage by the decision makers and private investors.
Unfortunately, dozens131 of buildings – mainly built in the early 19th century – were demolished and replaced by low-quality new buildings in the neighbourhood. The scale of such transformation drew public attention to the issue of built heritage. The
ÓVÁS! Association was formed in 2004 in order to fight against the destruction of the old buildings. Anna Perczel, one of the founding members of ÓVÁS! was among the first academics who called the neighbourhood the ‘Old Jewish Quarter’ in 1996 (A.
Perczel, personal communication, February 19, 2020)132. Consequently, the ‘(Old)
Jewish Quarter’ as a name for Inner-Erzsébetváros is the basic vocabulary of ÓVÁS!.
Thanks to the committed work of ÓVÁS!, many buildings gained heritage protection status thus ‘survived’ the wave of demolitions, although remained neglected133.
130 “Szimpla is the oldest ruin bar in the Jewish district now, and it is conscious about the heritage they curate both in tangible and intangible terms” (Mérai and Kulikov, 2019). 131 By 2009, 20 buildings were entirely demolished plus 5 buildings were partly demolished keeping their facades (Sipos and Zolnay, 2009). As Perczel (2007) noted, by 2007, 40% of the former housing stock were damaged or completely demolished. 132 “I started to research the quarter’s architecture in 1996. I didn't call the area a Jewish quarter at that time. No one did. (...) During my research (1996-1998) I studied the buildings and visited all of them, it turned out that ‘everybody’ was Jewish (…) every third house had a kosher bakery, kosher butchery, home synagogue or prayers’ room (...) It was obvious that the area around the synagogues was exclusively populated by Jews. Fear was one of the reasons why it was not called a Jewish Quarter. I talked to Géza Komoróczy about how interesting it is to encounter Jewry everywhere in the area. He suggested to call the area the Old Jewish Quarter of Pest in my research." (A. Perczel, personal communication, February 19, 2020) 133 “Although the large-scale demolitions have temporarily stopped in this area, and because some of the empty buildings have been made use of as “ruin pubs”, this district has become one of the most popular parts of the city. Yet, only very few houses have been reconstructed, the streets look rather neglected and there is not any
76 Around the early 2000s, neglected old buildings were occupied and reused by young entrepreneurs as bars and cultural venues – ‘ruinbars’. The ‘ruinbars’ are examples of how adaptive reuse can save old buildings by giving them new functions. Thanks to the ‘ruinbars’ not just single buildings, but also the vibe and perception of the neighbourhood have been turned into ‘cool’, ‘young’ and ‘alternative’. Certain places, established at that time, were regarded as ‘Jewish bars’ because of their cultural offerings and/or audience (D. Preiszler, personal communication, February 5, 2020).
In such cases even the owners were young local Jewish people who grew up in the neighbourhood (Gantner and Kovács, 2008). As the co-founders of Sirály – bar with
Jewish cultural profile – noted: “It was a perfect coincidence that we found ourselves in a squatted building in the Jewish Quarter. We wanted to create a space that reflects on Jewish cultural heritage.” (Á. Schönberger, personal communication, February 13, 2020) and
“Opening Sirály in the Jewish Quarter was not planned at all. In some respects, it was kind of a predestination. Due to various reasons, there were many vacant buildings in the quarter. By the way, Ádám Schönberger, the president of MAROM134, lived few streets away from Sirály.
Many of us used to go out partying in the neighbourhood” (E. Susán, personal communication, February 3, 2020). Sirály, and other places in the 2000s were places that offered cultural programmes not only alcoholic beverages and mainstream music.
After 2010, almost all of such places were forced to close by the newly elected right- wing municipality135 (Olt and Csizmady, 2020). The articles136 at that time – 2005 / 2006
– used titles such as ‘The end of the golden age of ruinbars’ and simply the ‘Death of ruinbars’. The ‘golden age’ of ruinbars’ was followed by the ‘age of the Party Quarter’
rehabilitation programme scheduled or executed. Many buildings are empty, and even when they are used as ‘ruin pubs’ or youth hostels, they are in decay.” (ÓVÁS, 2018) https://ovas.hu/english-francais/presentation- for-the-icomos-advisory-mission-to-budapest/ 134 Jewish Youth Organization (https://marom.hu) Sirály was a ’headquarter of MAROM until 2013. 135 As Olt and Csizmady (2020) describe, the pre-2010 ruinbars were non-profit places operated in neglected buildings owned by the municipality. The ruinbars paid zero or very little rent prize to the municipality. It is not a coincidence that at that time, the municipality was liberal-left (Olt and Csizmady, 2020). 136 Among the many articles written about the topic: https://index.hu/kultur/eletmod/rom0511/ https://index.hu/kultur/eletmod/rom0504/
77 while the (Jewish) cultural touch has been lost. As one of the Jewish interviewees noted: “Such a shame that the quarter has turned into a party district. When Sirály and Szóda were still here, this area had a very different atmosphere.” ‘Ruinbars’ have not disappeared completely, many present-day clubs and bars have kept the same ‘ruin aesthetics’. The most famous contemporary ‘ruinbar’, Szimpla – founded in 2001 – has not just kept its ‘ruined’ appearance, but also, despite being a super touristic place, it offers cultural programs (B. Molnár, personal communication, February 4, 2020). Nonetheless, the
Jewish countercultural profile that early (ruin)bars represented has disappeared leaving a cultural void behind. “[Is it a problem that Sirály and similar places were pushed out of the quarter?] It's absolutely a problem. The problem is not that many new places have been opened, but that places with progressive Jewish attitude have been completely pushed out of Inner-Erzsébetváros. Instead, there are institutional initiatives (by the municipality and by religious Jewish institutions) to represent and maintain Jewish culture in the Jewish Quarter. This is basically a new form of representation that was not common in the
2000s. (…) The progressive cultural character of the Jewish Quarter has gone. Due to the lack of progressive Jewish cultural places, I do not consider this area a ‘Jewish Quarter’ anymore.
It would come out ironic (Á. Schönberger, personal communication, February 13, 2020).
78 6.2 Authenticity and commodification of culture: Jewishness and the
‘ruinbar experience’
The expression ‘Jewish Disneyland’ is a common academic terminology describing
Jewish districts in Central and Eastern Europe (Waligórska and Wagenhofer, 2010).
As it was mentioned before, Budapest is different than other capital cities in the region, since the majority of its Jewish population survived the Holocaust.
Accordingly, the expression ‘Disneyland’ referring to unauthentic commodified cultural products cannot be applied to the Jewish Quarter of Budapest. “There is a large
Jewish community in Budapest and a lot of people who are related to Jewishness to whom Jewish culture is a personal issue. (…) A place becomes Disneyland only if there are no survivors, no community members who consider local culture as personal issue and reject kitschy souvenirs”
(E. Szívós, personal communication, February 5, 2020). What does authenticity mean, and from where commodification starts? The interviewees – who are members of the
Jewish community or closely relate to it – have different opinions. It is important to emphasize here that being Jewish means something different depending on personal interpretations. Thus, Jewish culture is also defined in various ways137. Accordingly, the way Jewish culture is represented in the Jewish Quarter for Jews and non-Jews alike can be seen authentic from one point of view and detrimental from another. The good example for the different standpoints is the opinions on Jewish style restaurants
– which are very common in Inner-Erzsébetváros. “The reflection on Jewry in the Jewish
Quarter is very superficial. Jewishness appears in a commodified way. For example, there is a place called ‘Brooklyn’, and another place is offering Matzo Cake all year long. Matzo cake is
137 “This is a big dilemma, what can be called Jewish culture. (…) [According to the contemporary discourse] it is not possible to define Jewish culture. On the other hand, there are many Jewish cultural organizations that call themselves ‘Jewish’. Their activities can be for instance dealing with Jewish traditions, historical reflection and/or questions of identity. (...) It is even more difficult to grasp the attributes of Jewish culture; the question is whether they exist or not. (…) Today's definition of Jewish culture roots in the 19th century, when there were emancipatory endeavours to resolve Jewish representation and to make Jewish culture understandable to non- Jews. It [Jewish culture] also acts as a kind of community bonding force, unlike assimilation efforts” (Á. Schönberger, personal communication, February 13, 2020).
79 Figure 11: Macesz Bistro Restaurant Figure 12: Menu of Hanna Figure 13: Menu of TLV / Hungarian-Jewish fusion cuisine Orthodox Glatt Kosher Eatery / Israeli style Source of the photos: author of this thesis Restaurant restaurant
traditionally eaten only once a year.” In contrast to the quoted opinion, most of the interviewees claimed that they have no problem with places marketed as Jewish.
“Jewishness is a possible marketing strategy for businesses in the neighbourhood. Why wouldn’t it be? (...) It is not a big problem for the community. The rabbi, however, clearly does not allow the promotion of non-kosher places by MAZSIHISZ138.” There is a major clash between Jewish restaurants and pastry shops: some of them are officially certified as kosher139 and ‘stamped’ by a rabbi (Figure 12) and others are ‘Jewish gastro’ restaurants offering Israeli style food (Figure 11 & 13). As most of the Hungarian
Jewish people do not keep a strict kosher diet – some of them do not even know what kosher diet means – they have no problem visiting ‘Jewish gastro’ food places. As one of the interviewees noted, Orthodox Jewish people do not care much about the non- kosher places, they do not even consider visiting those places since for them the most important criteria is the rabbinical certification. Unsurprisingly, the kosher restaurants almost exclusively cater Hasidic Orthodox Jewish people – “90% of our customers are non-Hungarians, they are either Hasidic Jews from the US or Israel” (D.
138Federation of Hungarian Jewish Communities 139 “Kosher products: (1) certified ingredients, (2) continuous control: for instance, the kosher supervisor brakes all the eggs, turn on the stoves and unlock and lock the food storage every day, (3) meat from kosher butcher” (D. Preiszler, personal communication, February 5, 2020).
80 Preiszler, personal communication, February 5, 2020). Such restaurants do not offer a
‘special food experience’, their uniqueness relies on the kosher certificate. On the other hand, most of the customers of the most famous pastry shop in the neighbourhood,
Frőhlich Kosher Pastry shop, do not keep kosher diet: “the most important is the quality of our pastries both for tourists and locals, not the rabbinical kosher certificate” (E. Frőhlich, personal communication, February 18, 2020). As the dietary habits of Jewish people are very diverse, non-kosher places cannot be simply labelled ‘unauthentic’ places catering only people outside of the Jewish community. Authenticity depends on how the management of such places interprets ‘being Jewish’: as a mere marketing tool or as a unique touch to their culinary offering. The majority of the interviewees do not find any particular places ‘disturbing’ by being ‘unauthentically’ Jewish. In other words, there are no restaurants, souvenir stores or other places in the Jewish Quarter that present Jewish culture in an ‘unreal’ way. Does it mean that the Jewish Quarter as a whole is ‘authentic’? As it was mentioned earlier, the neighbourhood was never called ‘Jewish Quarter’ before the late 1990s and its inhabitants have never been exclusively Jewish. Moreover, the Jewish population and institutional system has always been fragmented. By presenting and interpreting Inner-Erzsébetváros as ‘The
Jewish Quarter of Budapest’, without taking into consideration the plurality of the
Jewish community itself and the heritage of the neighbourhood as a place of peaceful co-existence of different religions and ethnicities, the rich history and identity of the area is neglected140.
As it was quoted earlier in this thesis: “Consumption, culture and leisure moved centre stage in cities’ political economy (…) [U]rban planners and policy-makers became increasingly
140 “My objection, as a historian, is that Inner-Erzsébetváros was never purely Jewish. On average, half of the area's population was Jewish. My problem is that the Jewish Quarter concept overshadows everything else. The former cultural and religious mix of the area has been largely lost in the Jewish Quarter narrative. This narrative suggests that it is a purely Jewish area without others or others are not important. I think the tradition of coexistence of different cultures and religions is the real value of Inner-Erzsébetváros.” (E. Szívós, personal communication, February 5, 2020)
81 preoccupied with place marketing and image-making policies (…)” (Harvey 1989, 1990, as cited in Colomb & Novy, 2016). Presenting Inner-Erzsébetváros as ‘The Jewish
Quarter’ of Budapest is undoubtedly a tool of urban marketing141 attracting foreign tourists. Both Jewish and non-Jewish tourists are interested in the neighbourhood.
Hasidic Jewish people – more precisely pilgrims visiting ‘gravesites of late wonder rabbis’142 in the north of Hungary – mainly visit Inner-Erzsébetváros because the facilities catered to them are located there – kosher restaurants, ritual bath, synagogue (map n.3 of the preliminary research) (D. Preiszler, personal communication, February
5, 2020). As the manager of one of the kosher restaurants noted: “Location does not matter for our clients. They would come to our restaurant even if it was located on the other side of the city”. Besides Hasidic pilgrims, Jewish people from the older generation – mainly from Israel or the United States – visit Inner-Erzsébetváros specifically because of the Holocaust memorials. The mentioned Jewish and Hasidic Jewish visitors do contribute to the commodification of the Jewish heritage of the neighbourhood.
Indeed, as the kosher restaurant’s manager noted, “90% of our customers are non-
Hungarians”. The very recognisable143 presence of such pilgrims as well as the Jewish tourists do ‘add’ to the ‘Jewish vibe’ of Inner-Erzsébetváros as it was detected by perceptions mapping among locals and tourists. The respondents referred to the
‘traditional wear of Orthodox Jews’, ‘kosher food places’ and ‘Hebrew language’ as perceivable cultural assets of the neighbourhood. Actually, according to the interviewed tourism professionals, the great majority of the tourists who visit the
Great Synagogue and attend walking tours in the neighbourhood are not Jewish144. As
141 “Today, real estate ads targeting foreigners tend to use the ‘Jewish Quarter’ label to define the neighbourhood. We can’t see this in Hungarian adds” (E. Szívós, personal communication, February 5, 2020). 142 https://footstepsofwonderrabbis.com/en/miracle-of-mad/pilgrimage 143 Hasidic Jewish people are very recognisable thanks to their traditional wear. 144 “80% of them [people who attend walking tours] are non-Jewish, almost zero Hungarians” (A. Horváth, personal communication, February 10, 2020) “90% of the tourists are non-Jewish. They do not know a lot about Jewry (about the religion, the sacred services, the culture). They don’t know the history of Jews, or not perfectly” (I. Róna, personal communication, February 17, 2020)
82 it was observed, the small square in front of the Great Synagogue is always full of tourists waiting to get in the Synagogue Complex145. The interviewees have not agreed on to what extent such intensive tourism activities disturb religious practice. “There is no conflict [between prayers and tourists]. Tourism can’t disturb religious practice. They
[prayers and tourists] do not meet at all. Only prayers are allowed to enter the synagogue at prayer services. We only let people in for the prayer services who obviously come to pray not to take photos, who wear proper clothes for example. For tourists the synagogue is closed on every Saturday and on Jewish holidays. On Fridays the synagogue closes earlier in order to prepare it for Kabbalat Shabbat. (…) They [prayers] are proud of their synagogue. They are glad that so many tourists would like to see it” (I. Róna, personal communication,
February 17, 2020). One of the interviewees noted that: “Sometimes with Israeli tourists there are problems. My brother, who is the rabbi there [Great Synagogue] once told to an
Israeli tourist who took photos during the ceremony: ‘you are Israeli, but definitely not Jewish’.
Since then, we use this phrase a lot” (E. Frőhlich, personal communication, February 18,
2020). According to another interviewee (who asked not to be quoted), the only reason behind tourism in the synagogues is revenue. Indeed, the tourism manager of
MAZSIHISZ agreed that tourism is a very important revenue source for the institution: “Our institution can keep the profit from tourism which makes us independent from the Hungarian state” It can be concluded that “the presence of tourism in the quarter is not unconditionally negative.” Such statement is from the owner of the very famous
Frőhlich Kosher Pasty Shop. The pastry shop is undoubtedly profiting from tourism.
Surprisingly, the owner noted, that the menu has not been changed at all in order to cater tourists’ demand. Indeed, as she said: “We believe, we should show them
145“The Dohány Street Synagogue complex (synagogue, museum, cemetery garden, Wallenberg memorial garden, ghetto exhibition) is the second most visited tourist attraction in Budapest” (I. Róna, personal communication, February 17, 2020).
83 Figure 14: Judapest gift store Figure 15: Jewish gift store in Figure 16 and 17: Tourists in front of the Dohány Street front of Kazinczy Street Synagogue (Great Synagogue Source of the photos: author Synagogue of this thesis
[tourists] who we really are, not something they already know. We do not want to conform to the needs. (…) Tourists usually want to experience authenticity.” She also added that their pastry shop is almost the only one that has been operating in the neighbourhood for long decades. Frőhlich Kosher Pastry Shop was founded in 1956, but it only gained the rabbinical certificate in 2013146. On the one hand, becoming officially kosher can be seen as conforming to the needs of the Hasidic visitors. On the other hand, by the certificate the well-known pastry shop raises awareness towards kosher diet among
Jews and non-Jews alike.
The very tangible and graspable places of commodified culture are souvenir stores.
Jewish-related souvenir stores are very rare in Inner-Erzsébetváros. There are couple of Budapest-related souvenir stores around the Great Synagogue, but in such stores no reference to Jewish culture can be found. On the other hand, stores offering Jewish religious objects are present in the neighbourhood. Such gift stores are targeting both
Jewish people and non-Jewish tourists. The religious institutions do not only tolerate this type of commodification of culture but they even also celebrate it. A good example
146 https://zsido.com/koser_a_frohlich/.
84 is the new ‘hipster’ Jewish gift store – Judapest:“Jewish and not. Unique Jewish gift shop in the heart of Budapest”147 – which is advertised by the MAZSIHISZ148. The products – both religious and non-religious objects designed by young designers – are obviously targeting people also from outside of the Jewish world.
Besides tourists, who only visit Inner-Erzsébetváros because of its Jewish cultural heritage, the great majority of tourists are also interested in the neighbourhood’s
‘ruinbars’. ‘Ruinbars’ are a tourist attraction of Budapest, just like cultural monuments. For instance, the ruinbar Szimpla is attracting thousands of people every weak. “Szimpla has become a mass place” (B. Molnár, personal communication, February
4, 2020). It was proved by perceptions mapping, performed at Szimpla, that most of the tourists are aware of the quarter’s Jewish heritage, but they do not wish to visit any cultural institutions. Such result is confirmed by one of the interviewees, who is a leader of a Jewish cultural institution: "Tourists, who do not specifically come to this area to learn more about Jewish culture, do not visit us.” In fact, it would be wrong to sharply divide tourists into ‘party tourists’ and ‘tourists interested in Jewish heritage’. Not only the depicted image of the neighbourhood by the media supports such (wrong) division, but also the vocabulary of the political leaders of the neighbourhood. “As it was promised in the municipal election campaign, we will turn the district into a cultural district” (B. Szücs, personal communication, February 26, 2020). During the campaign, the current major of Erzsébetváros stated that “the Party Quarter will be turned into a
Cultural Quarter”149. Undoubtedly, there are tourists who only visit Inner-
Erzsébetváros to party, but according to in-depth observation, interviews and
147 https://www.facebook.com/judapeststore/ 148 https://mazsihisz.hu/hirek-a-zsido-vilagbol/unnepek/ajandekotletek-hanukara 149 ‘The new mayor of Erzsébetváros wants to turn the party quarter into a cultural quarter.’ This was the title of one of the many articles about the new mayor’s main campaign promise. The Hungarian municipal election took place on 13 October 2019. http://www.atv.hu/belfold/20191016-bulinegyed-helyett-kulturalis-negyedet-akar-erzsebetvaros-uj- polgarmestere
85 perceptions mapping, the line between the customers of bars and the consumers of
Jewish cultural products is much blurrier than it was presumed.
All in all, it can be concluded, that the commodification of Jewish culture is undoubtedly happening in Inner-Erzsébetváros, but the commodification of the
‘ruinbar experience’ is much more harmful than Jewish restaurants, souvenir stores and cultural tourism. According to the personal opinion of the communication manager of Szimpla: “Power won. The mass of foreigners, who go crazy to get in, simply defeat Hungarians. Hungarians only come to Szimpla when they show it to foreign friends.
(…) For a while, my generation has realized that Szimpla is no longer the place we once loved.
(…) People, who visited ruinbars in the early 2000s, have been pushed out of the quarter” (B.
Molnár, personal communication, February 4, 2020). Nowadays, the ‘ruinbar experience’ has turned into a marketable strategy, a mainstream style that is communicating authenticity and uniqueness while lacking the original cultural profile and costumers. Contemporary ‘ruinbars’ are targeting tourists with catchy ‘fake’ run- down design – mimicking Szimpla – and offering limitless all-night long parties with considerably cheap alcoholic beverages. According to the perception of tourists,
Inner-Erzsébetváros is a place where ‘Jewish and youth culture coexist’ (perceptions mapping map n.2). Such perception should be valued by saving the remaining places in the neighbourhood that are offering cultural programs and visited by young
Hungarians. “The progressive cultural character of the Jewish Quarter has been reduced to few bars and cafes – Fekete Kutya, Kisüzem, Spinoza, Massolit – where traces of progressive attitude still can still be found” (Á. Schönberger, personal communication, February 13,
2020).
86 7 Conclusion
7.1 Answers to the main research questions
To what extent was the Jewish heritage responsible for the regeneration
Inner-Erzsébetváros has undergone since the 1990 regime change?
As it was mentioned in section 3.3, Inner-Erzsébetváros has not undergone major overall strategic urban regeneration since the 1990 regime change. The dialectics of top-down policies and bottom-up initiatives have shaped the neighbourhood for the past three decades. In fact, concerning its (1) residential structure, (2) physical condition of the building blocks, (3) its function, (4) its name and (5) its overall perception, Inner-Erzsébetváros has changed almost beyond recognition. The Jewish heritage of the neighbourhood is responsible for such changes to some extent. (1) In terms of residential restructuring, the major factor behind the change was the privatization of state-owned buildings inhibited by low-income families. Many of those families were relocated elsewhere. Jewish families indeed moved in to Inner-
Erzsébetváros, but such influx was rather insignificant. (2) The neighbourhood was untouched during the period of socialism. Instead of renovating the seriously neglected buildings, the post-socialist regime chose to destroy a significant share of the built heritage. Such action was legally and morally criticised by the NGO ÓVÁS! which referred to the neighbourhood’s tangible and intangible Jewish heritage as the most important value to preserve. Many buildings have been saved by the NGO
ÓVÁS! (3) Courtyards of the neglected old buildings were occupied by young urban entrepreneurs who opened pop-up bars with strong cultural profile. Despite being directly promoted as such, many of the early ‘ruinbars’ were considered ‘Jewish bars’, places recognised as sites of the emerging young Jewish subculture. By the early 2000s, the neighbourhood became the alternative countercultural centre of Budapest. Since
87 then, the countercultural profile is fading, and night clubs and related catering places became the typical hospitality facilities in the neighbourhood. (4) Besides turning into the ‘Party Quarter’ of Budapest, Inner-Erzsébetváros also re-gained its reputation as the ‘Jewish Quarter’ of the city accommodating Jewish religious institutions and places catered to religious Jewish people. (5) As the findings of the perceptions mapping research demonstrate, the neighbourhood is perceived as a place rich in
Jewish cultural assets. Such perception is in contrast with the general perception during the socialist period when the Jewish heritage of Inner-Erzsébetváros was hidden and/or forgotten.
How does the Jewish heritage contribute to the present-day character of
Inner-Erzsébetváros?
As it was proven by mapping (map n.3 of the preliminary research), Inner-
Erzsébetváros – especially the triangular area defined by the three historic synagogues
– is rich in Jewish institutions, memorials and places of Jewish ritual life. In addition, as it was discussed in section 6.2, Jewishness is present in the area in a commodified way by and for Jews and non-Jews alike in the form of kosher and non-kosher Jewish restaurants, gift stores, Jewish museums, walking tours and the Great Synagogue itself as a sacred place and also as one of the main tourist attractions of Budapest. The perceptions mapping research among (non-Jewish) tourists has proven that the Jewish character of the area is identifiable even by first-time visitors. Further research is needed to clarify such result – how and why can the Jewish character be perceived by tourists? Thanks to tour guide’s information or could the Jewish character be identified without preliminary knowledge? Local respondents of the perceptions mapping questionnaire have identified the synagogues, Jewish dishes, Hebrew language and Jewish people as cultural assets through all the five senses (map n.3 of perceptions mapping). Such results demonstrate that the Jewish heritage determines the perceptions of the present-day cultural profile of the neighbourhood.
88 What does the name ‘Jewish Quarter’ represent?
The Jewish Quarter might be understood as a geographical area or as a narrative. The term ‘quarter’ suggests that the urban area is well-defined, it is clearly distinguishable from a geographical, administrative, social, cultural or historical perspective. In fact,
Inner-Erzsébetváros cannot be divided from its urban context in any significant way
(map n.1 & n.2 of the preliminary research). The architecture and the urban tissue of the neighbourhood do not differ sharply from the surrounding neighbourhoods. As
Inner-Erzsébetváros is part of Erzsébetváros (7th District), it is not even an autonomous administrative unit. In terms of its residential structure, there is no clear division between the residents of Inner-Erzsébetváros and the neighbourhoods nearby. On the other hand, in terms of its tangible cultural heritage, Inner-Erzsébetváros does differ from other areas of the historic centre of Budapest, since three synagogues are located there in very close proximity to each other. The three synagogues – the ‘Jewish triangle’ – are identified to be significant cultural assets of Inner-Erzsébetváros
(perceptions mapping map n.1 & n.2 & n.3). Further research is needed to define how local residents, stakeholders and/or tourists perceive the present-day borders of the
Jewish Quarter. The results of perceptions mapping have proved that Inner-
Erzsébetváros is perceived to be Jewish. Defining the Jewish Quarter as a narrative enables to understand what such results of perceptions mapping mean. In other words, what it means that the neighbourhood is Jewish. Inner-Erzsébetváros is commonly defined to be the Jewish Quarter of Budapest because: (1) the representative spaces of the Jewish institutional system are located there, (2) academics have started to refer to the area as such based on the fact that historically a great share of the neighbourhood’s population were Jewish, (3) it is the area of the
WWII ghetto, thus Holocaust memorials are located there, (4) thanks to the aforementioned aspects, the area is marketed as Jewish, which results in Jewish restaurants, gift stores and cultural tourism. Further research is needed to define well what exactly such city marketing means, who is targeted and by whom. Lastly, it is
89 important to emphasize that the Jewish Quarter is a place of identification for Jews and non-Jews alike which means that: (1) it is a safe space for the Jewish community as a space of self-representation, (2) it represents that Jews do exist to outsiders and even for the community itself. Further research is needed to understand how the present- day much-fragmented Jewish population and Jewish institutional system of Budapest define the Jewish Quarter as a place of identification.
7.2 Limitations
The research of this thesis consisted of two complementary sets of methods: (1) preliminary online desk research & stakeholder and expert interviews, and (2) perceptions mapping & in-depth field observation. Despite the great amount of collected data, certain important viewpoints are missing. A planned interview with the president of the Autonomous Orthodox Jewish Community of Hungary could not be realized and in-depth interviews & perceptions mapping were not conducted among Jewish tourists. In addition, this thesis cannot provide a detailed answer to the very essential question of who lives in the neighbourhood. All in all, the collected data through interviews together with the academic literature are sufficient enough to answer the research questions and the results of perceptions mapping complement such data. The perceptions mapping research of this thesis is limited to a set of questions distributed through questionnaires. Perceptions mapping could have been the primary source of data in case of a greater number of respondents and completing it with the planned, yet unrealized, perceptions mapping workshop150. The method of perceptions mapping has been developed and tested by the research team of ICHEC
Brussels Management School under the framework of the CLIC project151 (see
150 Such workshop was planned for the beginning of May 2020 in Inner-Erzsébetváros, but due to lockdown and protective measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 virus, it was impossible to be realized. 151 https://www.clicproject.eu/perceptions-mapping-in-clic-cities/
90 perceptions mapping in Saleh and Ost, 2019; 2020) and it consists of two phases: random interviews based on the same questions used in the questionnaire of this thesis and a perceptions mapping workshop during which local residents and stakeholders work together to further clarify the perception of cultural assets and elaborate on possible solutions to regenerate misused cultural assets.
7.3 Concluding remarks
The conducted massive preliminary research enabled to formulate a viable hypothesis. According to the hypothesis, a strong conflict between the stakeholders of the ‘Jewish Quarter’ and the ‘Party Quarter’ and a distrust and rejection towards tourists were expected. Such hypothesis was only partially confirmed. According to the joint results of interviews and perceptions mapping, the neighbourhood could function as both the ‘Jewish Quarter’ and the ‘Party Quarter’ of Budapest with respectful regulations towards local residents. Based on the interviews, it is clear that the Jewish countercultural scene, which once made the neighbourhood especially unique, is no longer present in Inner-Erzsébetváros. The revival of such countercultural legacy could re-create the situation in which the ‘Jewish Quarter’ and the ‘Party Quarter’ are not completely distinct from each other in terms of customers as well as for general perception. In other words, Inner-Erzsébetváros could become a vibrant neighbourhood where places target equally both Jewish and non-Jewish local customers. Further research is needed to define what could be done to enable such revival. Currently, the neighbourhood is a place of mainstream nightclubs, eateries and short-term rentals catered mainly to young foreign tourists. By conscious planning and the help of the municipality, entrepreneurs together with Jewish cultural organizations could be re-attracted to occupy neglected buildings that are still present in the neighbourhood. At the same time planning for tourism and re- marketing of the neighbourhood are needed, in order to change the preconception
91 that Inner-Erzsébetváros is a place of cheap parties. Unsurprisingly, references to
Jewish culture are present in the neighbourhood in a commodified way targeting not only tourists. It is not argued that tourism as such is unconditionally negative, on the contrary, tourists are significant contributors to the general vibrant and lively image the neighbourhood has. Although, tourists should not be the only target audience of any catering business and/or cultural place. Again, such vision is only achievable by the municipality providing space and unconditional support to non-profit NGOs and entrepreneurs whose business plan is not to generate short-term quick profit, but rather to re-imagine Inner-Erzsébetváros as a place where tourists & locals, cultural places & party places and Jewish culture & other cultural references coexist and complement each other peacefully.
92 8 Bibliography
Bailey, C., Miles, S., & Stark, P. (2004). Culture-led urban regeneration and the revitalisation of identities in Newcastle, Gateshead and the North East of England. International journal of cultural policy, 10(1), 47-65.
Colomb, C. (2011). Culture in the city, culture for the city? The political construction of the trickle-down in cultural regeneration strategies in Roubaix, France. Town Planning Review, 82(1), 77-98.
Colomb, C., & Novy, J. (2016). Urban tourism and its disconnects. Protest and resistance in the tourist city. Routledge.
Csanádi, G., Csizmady, A., & Olt, G. (2010). Recent trends in urban renewal in Budapest. Urbani izziv, 21(1), 117-125.
Csizmady, Adrienne és Csurgó, Bernadett (2017) Consumption and authenticity: relationships between built heritage and local society. In: REHAB 2017 - Procedings of the 3rd International Conference on Preservation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Historical Buildings and Structures. Green Lines Institute, Lisboa. ISBN 978- 989-8734-24-2
Daldanise, G., Oppido S., Vellecco I. (2018). Creative adaptive reuse of cultural heritage for urban regeneration. Sessione speciale Adaptive reuse of cultural heritage and circular economy: the clic approach. Retrieved from http://www.urbanisticainformazioni.it/IMG/pdf/ui278si_sessione_speciale_4.pdf
Enyedi, G. (1998). Social change and urban restructuring in Central Europe. Budapest: Akadémiai Press.
Evans, G. (2005). Measure for measure: Evaluating the evidence of culture's contribution to regeneration. Urban studies, 42(5-6), 959-983.
Gantner, E. (2014). Interpreting the Jewish Quarter. Anthropological Journal Of European Cultures, 23(2), 26-42. doi: 10.3167/ajec.2014.230203
Gantner, E. B., & Kovács, M. (2007). The constructed Jew. A pragmatic approach for defining a collective Central European image of Jews (pp. 211-224). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
93 Gantner, E. B., & Kovács, M. (2008). Altering alternatives: mapping Jewish subcultures in Budapest. Jewish topographies: visions of space, traditions of place, 139- 160.
Gantner, E. B., & Oppenheim, J. K. (2014). Jewish Space Reloaded: An Introduction. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 23(2), 1-10.
Gravagnuolo, A., Girard, L. F., Ost, C., & Saleh, R. (2017). Evaluation criteria for a circular adaptive reuse of cultural heritage. Bollettino Del Centro Calza Bini, 17(2), 185-216.
Harvey, D. (2009). The art of rent: globalisation, monopoly and the commodification of culture. Socialist register, 38(38).
Hirt, S. (2013). Whatever happened to the (post) socialist city?. Cities, 32, S29-S38.
Kährik, A., Temelová, J., Kadarik, K., & Kubeš, J. (2016). What attracts people to inner city areas? The cases of two post-socialist cities in Estonia and the Czech Republic. Urban studies, 53(2), 355-372.
Keresztély, K. (2009). Wasting memories - gentrification vs. urban values in the Jewish neighbourhood of Budapest. In M. Murzyn-Kupisz & J. Purchla, Reclaiming memory (pp. 163-181). Krakow: International Cultural Centre.
Keresztély, K., & Scott, J. W. (2012). Urban regeneration in the post-socialist context: Budapest and the search for a social dimension. European Planning Studies, 20(7), 1111-1134.
Klunzman, K. (2004). Keynote speech to Intereg III Mid-term Conference, Lille. Regeneration and Renewal, 19, 2.
Komoróczy, G. (2018). Várostérkép héber betűkből: Bevezetés [City map from Hebrew letters: Introduction] In G. Török, Ami látható és ami láthatatlan: Erzsébetváros zsidó öröksége [what is visible and what is invisible: Jewish heritage of Erzsébetváros] (2nd ed., pp. 11-37). Budapest
Konrád, M. (2018). Brettlik, zengerájok, orfeumok. [Cabarets, Cafe-chantants, orpheums] In G. Török, Ami látható és ami láthatatlan: Erzsébetváros zsidó öröksége [what is visible and what is invisible: Jewish heritage of Erzsébetváros] (2nd ed., pp. 169-178). Budapest
94 Kovács, Z. (2009). Social and economic transformation of historic neighbourhoods in Budapest. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 100(4), 399-416. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9663.2009.00549.x
Kovács, Z., Wiessner, R., & Zischner, R. (2013). Urban renewal in the inner city of Budapest: Gentrification from a post-socialist perspective. Urban Studies, 50(1), 22- 38.
Kovács, Z., Wiessner, R., & Zischner, R. (2015). Beyond gentrification: Diversified neighbourhood upgrading in the inner city of Budapest. Geografie-Sbornik Ceske Geograficke Spolecnosti, 120(2), 251-274.
Labadi, S. (2011). Evaluating the Socio-Economic Impacts of Selected Regenerated Heritage Sites in Europe. European Cultural Foundation. European cultural foundation.
Lloyd, R. (2002). Neo–bohemia: Art and neighborhood redevelopment in Chicago. Journal of urban affairs, 24(5), 517-532.
Lugosi, P., Bell, D., & Lugosi, K. (2010). Hospitality, Culture and Regeneration: Urban Decay, Entrepreneurship and the ‘Ruin’ Bars of Budapest. Urban Studies, 47(14), 3079-3101. doi: 10.1177/0042098009360236
Mérai, D., & Kulikov, V. (2019). OpenHeritage: Deliverable 2.2 (Report) The Jewish District of Budapest: An Observatory Case.
Murzyn-Kupisz, M., & Purchla, J. (2009). Reclaiming memory. Krakow: International Cultural Centre.
Miles, S., & Paddison, R. (2005). Introduction: The rise and rise of culture-led urban regeneration.
Myerscough, J. (1988). The economic importance of the arts in Britain. Policy Studies Institute.
Olt, G., & Lepeltier-Kutasi, L. (2018). 12 Urban rehabilitation and residential struggles in the post-socialist city of Budapest. The City as a Global Political Actor.
Olt, G., Smith, M., Csizmady, A., & Sziva, I. (2019). Gentrification, tourism and the night-time economy in Budapest's district VII – the role of regulation in a post- socialist context. Journal Of Policy Research In Tourism, Leisure And Events, 1-13. doi: 10.1080/19407963.2019.1604531
95 Olt, G., & Csizmady, A. (2020). Gentrification and functional change in Budapest– ‘ruin bars’ and the commodification of housing in a post-socialist context. Urban Development Issues, 65(1), 17-26.
Ost, C., & Saleh, R., (2021). Innovative Business Model for Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Heritage in a Circular Economy Perspective, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Forthcoming.
Perczel, A. (2007). Pest regi zsido negyedenek sorsa, jelenlegi helyzet [The fate of the old Jewish quarter of pest and the current situation]. Mult es Jovo, 18(2), 100–131. Retrieved from http:// www.multesjovo.hu/hu/2007-2.html
Pillai, J. (2013). Cultural Mapping: A Guide to Understanding Place, Community and Continuity. Puchong, Selangor, Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Pinke-Sziva, I., Smith, M., Olt, G., & Berezvai, Z. (2019). Overtourism and the night- time economy: a case study of Budapest. International Journal of Tourism Cities.
Pinto, D. (1996). A new Jewish identity for post-1989 Europe. Institute for Jewish Policy Research. https://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-eur44
Polyák, L. (2006). Heritage as argument, heritage as authority: Notions and positions in contemporary Budapest urban planning discourse. In: Schröder-Esch, S. & Justus H. Ulbricht (eds.): The Politics of Heritage and Regional Development Strategies. Bauhaus Universitat, Weimar
Purchla, J. (2009). A world after a Catastrophe – in search of lost memory. In M. Murzyn-Kupisz & J. Purchla, Reclaiming memory (pp. 7-13). Krakow: International Cultural Centre.
Richards, G. (1996). Production and consumption of European cultural tourism. Annals of tourism research, 23(2), 261-283.
Saleh, R. & Ost, C. (2020). Perceptions mapping: a participatory tool for urban conservation planning. Manuscript in preparation.
Saleh, R., & Ost, C. (2019). Introduction to perceptions mapping: the case of Salerno, Italy. TERRITORIO DELLA RICERCA SU INSEDIAMENTI E AMBIENTE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING, 12(2), 137-160. doi: 10.6092/2281-4574/6639
Sipos, A., & Zolnay, J. (2009). Ingatlanpanama, a régi pesti zsidóonegyed elpusztítása [Real-estate corruption, the destruction of the old Jewish Quarter].
96 Beszélő, 14(5). Retrieved 10 March 2020, from http://beszelo. c3.hu/cikkek/ingatlanpanama
Smith, M., Egedy, T., Csizmady, A., Jancsik, A., Olt, G., & Michalkó, G. (2017). Non- planning and tourism consumption in Budapest's inner city. Tourism Geographies, 20(3), 524-548. doi: 10.1080/14616688.2017.1387809
Susán, E. (2017) From a New Jewish Culture to social justice entrepreneurship: Jewish revival among young adults in post-socialist Hungary. Unpublished manuscript.
Sýkora, L., & Bouzarovski, S. (2012). Multiple transformations: Conceptualising the post-communist urban transition. Urban Studies, 49(1), 43-60.
Szelényi, I. (1996). Cities under socialism—and after. In G. Andrusz, M. Harloe, & I. Szelenyi (Eds.), Cities after socialism: Urban and regional change and conflict in post- socialist societies (pp. 286–317). Malden: Blackwell
Szívós, E. (2015). Introduction: Historic Jewish Spaces in Central and Eastern European Cities. East Central Europe, 42(2-3), 139-162. doi: 10.1163/18763308- 04202005
Szívós, E. (2015). Turbulent history, troublesome heritage: Political change, social transformation, and the possibilities of revival in the “Old Jewish Quarter” of Budapest. Hungarian Studies, 29(1-2), 93-120. doi: 10.1556/044.2015.29.1-2.7
Szívós, E. (2016). A Belső-Erzsébetváros múltja és zsidó öröksége: Emlékezés és emlékezet 1945-től napjainkig. Múlt és Jövő, (2), 59-71.
Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Throsby, D. (2002). Cultural Capital and Sustainability Concepts in the Economics of Cultural Heritage. In Della Torre Marta (Ed.), Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage (pp. 101–117). Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
Tosics, I. (2005). City development in Central and Eastern Europe since 1990: The impact of the internal forces. In F. Hamilton, K. Andrews, & N. Pichler-Milanovic (Eds.), Transformation of cities in Central and Eastern Europe: Towards globalization. New York: United Nations University Press.
Ulldemolins, R. J. (2014). Culture and authenticity in urban regeneration processes: Place branding in central Barcelona. Urban Studies, 51(14), 3026-3045.
97 United Nations. (2016). HABITAT III New Urban Agenda. Retrieved from http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf
Waligórska, M. (2009). Spotlight on the unseen: the rediscovery of little Jerusalems. In M. Murzyn-Kupisz & J. Purchla, Reclaiming memory (pp. 99-117). Krakow: International Cultural Centre.
Waligórska, M., & Wagenhofer, S. (2010). Cultural Representations of Jewishness at the Turn of the 21st Century. European University Press.
Yarker, S. (2018). Tangential attachments: Towards a more nuanced understanding of the impacts of cultural urban regeneration on local identities. Urban Studies, 55(15), 3421-3436.
Zukin, S. (2008). Consuming authenticity: From outposts of difference to means of exclusion. Cultural studies, 22(5), 724-748.
98 9 Appendix
9.1 Questions of the thirteen in-depth semi-structured interviews
1- Gergely Olt, Researcher at Institute for Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Length of the interview: 73 minutes
Olt and his fellow colleagues have published several academic research papers about gentrification, tourism and night economy in Inner-Erzsébetváros. The interview with Olt revolved around the corrupt privatization process and related physical and social transformation Inner-Erzsébetváros has undergone since 1990.
Questions: - How to understand the concept of regeneration through the case of Inner-Erzsébetváros, where neither social nor physical top-down rehabilitation have happened? - In Budapest, does population change and physical rehabilitation go hand in hand? - Is there connection between international movements (occupying movements, squatting, reclaiming public spaces) and the early ‘ruinbars’? -After some time underground becomes mainstream. We can see this shift in Inner-Erzsébetváros, which was a place of underground initiatives and today it is a mainstream party quarter. ‘Ruinbars’ – were places of temporary urbanism – have disappeared from the quarter. Is it an inevitable change?
2- Levente Polyák, Urban planner, researcher, member of the KÉK- Contemporary Architecture Centre Length of the interview: 42 minutes
As Polyák is specialised on urban regeneration and cultural development and he published a much-sited research paper about the role of heritage in urban planning in Budapest using the example of Inner-Erzsébetváros, the interview with him was mainly about the regeneration and gentrification of the area.
Questions: -What does the name ‘Jewish Quarter’ mean today? - How can we understand the term ‘rehabilitation’ in case of Inner-Erzsébetváros? - Is there a special reason why rehabilitation was not even considered in the 7th District [Erzsébetváros]? - How authentic the Jewish places in Inner-Erzsébetváros are compare to Krakow and Prague? - What does cultural tourism mean to the Jewish Quarter of Budapest? - Who is living in Inner-Erzsébetváros? - Jewish Quarter, Party Quarter, Cultural Quarter. Does this relatively small area have too many labels? - Is there or should there be overlaps between the places of the Party Quarter and the Jewish Quarter? - What do you think about the future scenarios of Inner-Erzsébetváros? - There are only few places focusing of social responsibility in the quarter. Do you agree?
3- Erika Szívós, Head of Department of Economic and Social History, Eötvös Loránd University Length of the interview: 83 minutes
The preliminary research of this master thesis was based on among other the works of Szívós about the history of the Old Jewish Quarter of Budapest. Interviewing Szívós provided a deeper understanding of the 20th century social changes of the neighbourhood, the revival of Jewish identity after the regime change and the contemporary situation in terms of cultural tourism.
Questions: -How do you think the Jewish Quarter can be interpreted: as a space that is important to the community and / or as a tourist attraction? - How can the Jewish Quarter of Budapest be comparable to other Central European Jewish Quarters? - How has the name ‘Jewish Quarter’ become widespread? What is behind this name today? - Today, the Jewish Quarter is one of Budapest's most famous tourist attractions. Does tourism reduce the Jewish Quarter into a marketable and sellable product? - Today, various labels (Jewish Quarter, Party Quarter, Underground Quarter, Cultural Quarter, etc.) are used to define Inner- Erzsébetváros. They do not necessarily relate to Jewish culture, but share the same area, a relatively small and crowded area. Is this a 'normal' urban phenomenon?
99 - What can tell about the renewal of the Jewish Quarter? To what extent the population of Inner-Erzsébetváros can be considered continuous?
4- Anna Perczel, architect, urbanist, President of ÓVÁS! Association Length of the interview: 67 minutes
Perczel is a key figure in raising awareness of the built heritage of Inner-Erzsébetváros. She was the first researcher who called the neighbourhood “the Old Jewish Quarter”, she is a founder of ÓVÁS! Association and an author of several research papers. The interview with Perczel concentrated on the physical regeneration of the neighbourhood, the activity of ÓVÁS! and the revival of the area as the Old Jewish Quarter of Budapest.
Questions: - How was the ÓVÁS! NGO founded? - How was the name Jewish Quarter stuck to Inner-Erzsébetváros? - Did the Jewish quarters of other European cities influence you in introducing the name Old Jewish Quarter of Pest? - Is Inner-Erzsébetváros a Jewish quarter today? - Can we say that the name ‘Jewish Quarter‘ is a marketing tool? What do you think about cultural tourism in the Jewish Quarter? - What do you think about the cultural life of the Jewish Quarter? - What are ÓVÁS! (and you) working on today? - Is there a difference between the architecture of a Jewish and a non-Jewish building? - What do you think about turning the Jewish Quarter into a Party Quarter?
5- Eszter Susán, Founder of MAROM, PhD candidate, NYU Steinhardt, Education and Jewish studies Doctoral Program Length of the interview: 63 minutes
The interview with Susán was about the role of Marom Civil Association as a Jewish youth cultural organization in introducing an alternative way of expressing and experiencing Jewish identity. Such new Jewish subculture evolved around the bar called Sirály opened and run by Marom in Inner-Erzsébetváros between 2006 and 2012.
Questions: - What do you mean by Jewish youth organization? How is MAROM different from other Jewish organizations? - How was MAROM founded? - How does MAROM relate to the Jewish Quarter? Why was Sirály opened in the Jewish Quarter? - Occupation, squatting…. Where did the idea come from? Were there any organizations or foreign examples that inspired the founders of Sirály? - Who was the target audience of Sirály? - Could the underground community of the 2000s be related to specific places (bars, pubs, clubs etc)? - Is Auróra a successor to Sirály? Does it matter that Auróra is located outside of the Jewish Quarter? - By the fact that MAROM has found its place outside of the Jewish Quarter, can we say that the boundaries of the Jewish Quarter are disappearing? - The Jewish Quarter today ... Can we say that both the Jewish Quarter and the ‘ruinbar phenomenon’ have been reduced to marketable cultural products and there is no connection between these two products?
6- Ádám Schönberger, Founder and president of MAROM Length of the interview: 59 minutes
The interview with Schönberger was particularly useful in understanding the complex debate of what Jewish culture is and what the Old Jewish Quarter means to the Jewish community. In addition to the discussion with Susán, Schönberger further clarified the role Sirály played in the alternative cultural scene of Budapest.
Questions: - What does Jewish culture mean in the description of MAROM [Jewish youth cultural organization]? - What do you mean by Jewish youth organization? How is MAROM different from other Jewish organizations? -What does the Jewish Quarter mean to the Jewish community and Jewish institutions? - How does MAROM (and Sirály founded by MAROM) relate to the Jewish Quarter? - To what extent has the ‘ruinbar movement’ impacted Sirály? - Although the various early ‘ruinbars’ were not defined by the owners as sites promoting Jewish culture, were nonetheless important hubs for young Jewish cultural life .... - Squatting, reclaiming the city.... Where did the idea come from? Were there concrete international examples that inspired the ‘business’ model of Sirály? - Today, the quarter is famous for its ruinbars, which are now tourist attractions and mainstream party venues ... Is it a problem that Sirály and similar places had been pushed out of the quarter? - Newer places in the Jewish Quarter do not reflect Jewish cultural identity. This is a problem'?
100
7- Zsófia Lefkovics, Director of Csányi 5 Jewish Cultural Center and Museum Length of the interview: 35 minutes
Interviewing Lefkovics as a director of a Jewish cultural institution made it clear who the target audience is of such institution and the importance of its geographical location.
Questions: - When was Csányi 5 established? - Who is your target audience? - What kind of programs do you organize? Who visits those events? - What does it mean to be Jewish institution? - Is it important that Csányi 5 is located in the Jewish Quarter? - What does the name ‘Jewish Quarter ‘mean in 2020? - ‘Jewish Renaissance’? What does it mean? - Who do you think lives here? - What do you think what is the role of cultural tourism in the quarter? Is tourism important? - Jewishness as authenticity or a commodified product? - The quarter is labelled as a ‘Jewish Quarter’ and a ‘Party Quarter.’ Is it a problem?
8- Iván Róna, Head of tourism department of Federation of Hungarian Jewish Communities Length of the interview: 65 minutes
Róna is the tourism director the Dohány Street Synagogue Complex which is of one of the most visited tourist attractions of Budapest. It is run by the Federation of Hungarian Jewish Communities. The advantages and disadvantages of tourism in the area was discussed during the interview.
Questions: - When and why was the tourist department of MAZSIHISZ [Federation of Hungarian Jewish Communities] festablished? - Why is the synagogue complex so popular among tourists? Is it a result of conscious marketing? - What are the typical cultural backgrounds of the tourists? Are they typically Jewish? - Are there conflicts between the tourism department of MAZSIHISZ and tour guides who don’t belong to your group and work outside of the area of the synagogue? - According to you, does tourism have a negative side? Is the synagogue turning into a museum? - What does the name ‘Jewish Quarter’ mean? - What did happen during socialism with the Jewish Quarter? - Why was Inner-Erzsébetváros named as the ‘Jewish Quarter’ not Újlipótváros where the biggest Jewish community lives? Are there any restaurants or souvenir shops that use Jewishness for marketing? - Is it possible to draw parallels between the Jewish quarters of Krakow and Budapest? - What is your opinion about the Party Quarter?
9- Balázs Szücs, Deputy mayor of Erzsébetváros Length of the interview: 34 minutes
Interviewing Szücs was essential for the understanding of the point of view of the district municipality. Szücs is a deputy major of Erzsébetváros in charge of cultural and religious issues. The interview revolved around the municipality’s plan to turn the district into a cultural quarter.
Questions: - Does the municipality have a cultural development strategy? If so, what is it? - When you talk about the district, do you mean the entire Erzsébetváros? - According to you, what does the name ‘Jewish Quarter’ mean? - Do you think there is a place for progressive cultural initiatives in Inner-Erzsébetváros? - Who is the target audience of your cultural development strategy? - What income level do the families living in Inner-Erzsébetváros have today? - Does the municipality have any vacant property that could be used for cultural purposes?
10- Erika Frőhlich, Owner of Frőhlich Pastry Shop Length of the interview: 36 minutes
Frőhlich Pastry Shop is a kosher pastry shop founded by Frőhlich’s father in 1956. It is a landmark business in the Jewish Quarter attracting both Jewish and non-Jewish customers who are either locals or tourists. The interview with Frőhlich provided an insight of the local Jewish community.
101 Questions: - When was the pastry shop founded? - What kind of pastries do you make today? - What has changed since the 1990 regime change? - Who were your costumers? Who are they today? Do many tourists visit the pastry shop? - Do you spend on marketing? - Does contemporary tourism have a dark side from the point of view of the pastry shop? - Have you changed something in your menu in order to serve tourists better? - Are there other places in the neighbourhood offering similar authentic experience? - What does the name ‘Jewish Quarter’ mean according to you? - Who lives in the quarter?
11- Dániel Preiszler, Manager of Carmel Kosher Restaurant Length of the interview: 47 minutes
The interview was about the target audience of this kosher restaurant. In addition, Preiszler explained the Hungarian Jews relation to kosher diet. As Preiszler noted, 90% of the restaurant’s costumers are non-Hungarian tourists who are commonly either Orthodox Jewish people from New York or Israeli tourists.
Questions: - When was the restaurant founded? - What does it mean to be kosher? - Are there other certified kosher food places in Budapest? - Who is your target audience? - What kind of food you have on the menu? - What do you think about the Jewish Quarter as a tourist destination? - What does the Jewish Quarter mean to the local Jewish community? - Who lives in the quarter? - What do you think about the Jewish Quarter as an underground cultural place? - Is there any conflict between tourists and the local Orthodox community?
12- Bence Molnár, Head of communication of Szimpla Length of the interview: 78 minutes
Szimpla is the most well-known ruinbar in Budapest attracting thousands of tourists every week. Molnár described all the efforts the management of Szimpla is making in order to be a socially sustainable cultural facility. The interview also tackled how the profile of Szimpla has changed significantly since its opening in 2002.
Questions: - “Szimpla is the oldest ruin bar in the Jewish district now, and it is conscious about the heritage they curate both in tangible and intangible terms” (Mérai and Kulikov, 2019) Can you please explain how does Szimpla deal with the intangible heritage of the quarter? - I'd like to talk about the early years of Szimpla ... - Who was your target audience in the early years? - What does ‘ruinbar’ mean in 2020? - In the 2000s, Szimpla, and in general ruinbars were places of temporary urbanism, urban activism and places of reclaiming the city. How authentic Szimpla is today in this sense? - Szimpla is one of the must-see tourist attractions of Budapest. Thousands of people visit it every week. Taken this into consideration what is ‘the mainstream’ today? Is Szimpla forming the mainstream? - Who is your target audience? - I would like to talk about social responsibility and initiatives that closely related to the district and local residents... - What is your opinion on the Party Quarter? - It is obvious that the customers of Szimpla are very different than in the early years. Was it a conscious decision to become a place of foreign tourists? How has the audience changed by the time?
13- András Horváth, Tourist guide Length of the interview: 36 minutes
Horváth holds a master’s degree in history and he is working as a tourist guide, among other locations, in the Old Jewish Quarter of Budapest. The interview revolved around the common profile of tourists who visit his Jewish Tours. In addition, as he is working for a private company, the relationship between such tourism company and local Jewish institutions was also discussed.
Questions:
102 - Who is your target audience? - Can you tell me what kind of walking tour do you guide? - Who can be a tourist guide? - Who has defined the route of the guided tour? - What do you talk about to the tourists, the history of the quarter and/or contemporary issues? - What can you tell about the tourists attending your guided tour? - What do you think about the present-day Jewish Quarter? - How is your relationship as a tour guide with locals? - Who lives in the quarter?
9.2 Results of the perceptions mapping questionnaires
Perceptions mapping questionnaire targeting tourists Number of respondents: 12 Code: questions, answers, categorization of the answers answers visualised on diagrams and maps: diagram (profile of respondents) diagram n.2. map n.2.
1. How do you know this neighbourhood? Don’t know (5); Travel guide, internet, google, YouTube videos (4); Recommended by someone (3)
2. When you think about this neighbourhood, what is your first impression? Please describe the area in few words! Related to tangible or intangible cultural heritage152: Very cultural; There are a lot of Jewish people around; Historic architecture; historical (3); beautiful Related to perceived lifestyle: Great (2); Friendly; Lively; Diverse; Different; For all ages; safe; gentrified Related to tourism: Touristic place; International (2) Related to ruinbars: Szimpla: beautiful place, interesting place, nice music, good beer; Colourful (3); Cool looking; Hipster (2); Trendy (2); Communal; Chilled Related to the Party Quarter: at night it is crowded and noisy; there are a lot of pubs and clubs
3. If you had to describe this place by a colour, what colour would it be? Rainbow (3); red (4), purple (2), peach, orange, yellow; grey (2)
4. Do you know that this neighbourhood is called the Old Jewish Quarter of Budapest? Can you give examples of tangible or intangible signs of Jewish culture? No (3); Yes (but can’t spot anything Jewish) (2); Traditional orthodox people; Great Synagogue (5); Holocaust memorial in the garden of the synagogue; Kosher food stores (2); Jewish restaurants (4); Narrow streets; Traditional places of trade; Geographically compact area (quarter)
5. Have you visited or are you planning to visit cultural institutions in the neighbourhood? Which ones? No (8); Planning to visit the Great Synagogue (2); Already been to the Great Synagogue and the Jewish Museum (2)
6. According to your impressions, which tangible or intangible cultural assets representing this neighbourhood the best? Can’t name anything, but it is a beautiful place; Unique architecture (2); Local community; Jewish Museum; Great Synagogue; The possibility to meet people; Jewish traditions coexist with youth culture; Youngster’s places such as Szimpla
7. Personal details
7.1. Nationality
152 The answers were classified during the process of evaluation. In other words, for example the respondents did not refer to tangible or intangible cultural heritage when they gave the answer of ‘there are a lot of Jewish people around’.
103 Turkish; Brazilian (2); South-Korean; Welsh; Austrian (2); Scottish; English (2); Greek; Portuguese
7.2 Age 19-25 (4); 25-35 (4); 35-49 (4)
7.3. How many times have you been to Budapest? First time (7); Have been to Bp once (3); Have been to Bp more than once (2)
7.4. How long are you staying here now? 2-3 days (7); 4-6 days (5)
7.5. Do you have any specific reason visiting Budapest (and the Old Jewish Quarter)? Interested in Budapest but nothing specific (5); Visit a girlfriend in Budapest; Budapest is one of the most impressive places in Europe; Budapest is my dream destination; I come here to visit thermal baths (2); Architecture of the Jewish Quarter and the old vibe
Perceptions mapping questionnaire targeting locals Number of respondents: 22 Code: questions, answers, categorization of the answers answers visualised on diagrams and maps: diagram (profile of respondents) diagram n.1 map n.1 map n.3 diagram n.3
1. When you think of the neighbourhood (Inner-Erzsébetváros), what are the adjectives or terms that come to your mind first? Related to Jewish heritage: Jewish (2); Great Synagogue; Synagogues; Flodni (Jewish pastry); Semes kosher bakery Positive: Vibrant (2); Lively (2); Diverse; Open-minded mentality; exciting; touristy; Beautiful; Multicultural (3); Historical (3); cultural; Colourful (3); Nice people; Homey (2); Király Street; Wesselényi Street; Vintage clothing stores; Party Quarter Negative: Dog turd; Crowded (4); Too much traffic; Noisy (5); Smelly (2); Dirty (5); Alcohol; Problematic foreign party-tourists (2); People here are only concerned about partying; Lack of cycling paths; Lack of parking lots; Neglected Jewish heritage; Tragic history of the Holocaust (3)
2. When you think of the neighbourhood (Inner-Erzsébetváros), what are the tangible and/or intangible cultural assets that shape the local identity and make the neighbourhood unique? Related to Jewish heritage: Synagogues (5); Jewish community; Kazinczy Street Synagogue; Great Synagogue (8); Mikveh (3); Jewish museum (4); Memorial in Dohány Street; Wallenberg Holocaust Memorial ‘Willow’ (2); Solet Festival (2); Negyed6 Negyed7 Festival (Quarter6 Quarter7); Jewish Cultural Festival (4); Orthodox Jewish people in traditional clothes; Csányi5 Jewish Cultural Centre and Museum; Judafest (2) Not related to Jewish heritage: Elderly day-care club (3); Elderly gymnastic; Wesselényi Street; Kazinczy Street; Gozsdu Yard; Örkény Theatre; Events on the ‘Day of the Birds and Trees’; Facades; Hidden backyards such as Akácos Yard; Unique buildings (4); Architectural masterpieces; University (2); Restaurants; Painted firewalls (murals) (3); Cultural events; Exhibitions in Tesla; Tourism; Szimpla; Szimpla Market; Party Quarter (3); Ruinbars; Parties; Music
3. Cultural assets of the neighbourhood based on five senses (sight, taste, touch, smell, hearing)
3.1. What are the most important cultural assets identifiable through your sense of sight? Related to Jewish heritage: Great Synagogue (5); Traditional looking Orthodox Jewish people (2); Wallenberg Holocaust memorial; Holocaust memorials; Synagogues (5); Jewish Museum; Solet Festival; Judafest Not related to Jewish heritage: Painted firewalls (murals) (3); Pekáry House; Gate on Madách Square; Unique (eclectic) architecture (7); Beautiful doors of the buildings; Facades; City lights; Exhibitions; ruinbars (2); Cafes and bars (3); Small stotes; Szimpla; Vintage clothing stores
3.2. What are the most important cultural assets identifiable through your sense of taste? Related to Jewish heritage: Jewish restaurants (kosher and non-kosher); Jewish pastry shops; Frőhlich pastry shop; Hanna restaurant; Kosher butcher shop; Kosher food; Hummus bar; Flodni (2); Matzo balls; Kőleves Restaurant; Kádár Restaurant (the dish called vadas); Shakshuka; Hummus; Rugelach
104 Not related to Jewish heritage: Gulyás (2); Bors street food reastaurant; Chimney cake (2); Quince cheese at the market; Flat white at Stika; sourdough bread; Lángos; Gyros; spitzer
3.3. What are the most important cultural assets identifiable through your sense of touch? Related to Jewish heritage: Touch of Star of David on certain facades; Façade of the Great Synagogue Not related to Jewish heritage: Touch of velvet theatre chairs; Objects and clothes in designer stores; Puppies in the neighbourhood (2); Traditional Hungarian clothes at souvenir shops; Touch of vine glasses; Cold beer glass; Frozen shot glasses; Facades
3.4. What are the most important cultural assets identifiable through your sense of smell? Related to Jewish heritage: Jewish dishes (3); Smell of flodni; Synagogue; Kőleves (non-kosher Jewish restaurant) Not related to Jewish heritage: Smell of old books; Smell of antique stores; Smell of backyards; Smell of massage oil; Smell of different restaurant from all over the world; Street food such as gyros; Bakeries; Chimney cake; Mulled vine; Cafés, bars, ruinbars (2); Bors (street food buffet); Ramenka (Ramen restaurant); Smell of staircases of buildings on Sunday when families are cooking at home; Alcoholic smell of tables at bars; Linden trees
3.5. What are the most important cultural assets identifiable through your sense of hearing? Related to Jewish heritage: Hebrew language; Cantor at the Great Synagogue; There is nothing comparable prayers sing together at the synagogue; Tour guides (2) Not related to Jewish heritage; Live music from bars and restaurants; Stand-up comedy; Concerts; Sounds of different languages (2); Gozsdu Courtyard; Mika Tivadar life music club; Parties (2); Tourists (2); Trolleybus; Church bells (2); Pigeons
4. Threats/anomalies happening around cultural assets of the neighbourhood based on five senses (sight, taste, touch, smell, hearing)
4.1. What are the threats/anomalies hindering cultural assets identifiable through your sense of sight? Related to Jewish heritage: Party Quarter dominates over the Jewish Quarter (4); Newly built too big buildings (2) example: Holló Street Not related to Jewish heritage: Fake drug dealers; vomit (3); Urine (2); excrement; Broken glasses; Alcohol; Food on the ground; Lack of public toilettes; Cars; Newly constructed hotels; Closure of well-known cultural places; Too many tourists (3); vandalism by foreign party tourists (2); vandalism (4); homeless people; tagging (graffiti) (3); neglected city furniture (benches); lack of emptying the trash bins; trash (5); dirt; dogs’ turd; neglected facades
4.2. What are the threats/anomalies hindering cultural assets identifiable through your sense of taste? Fake Jewish restaurants; bad quality alcohol (2); bad quality food (fast food) serving for tourists (for profit); fast food; lack of traditional tastes; kebab; This neighbourhood is all about feeding tourists and serving them alcoholic beverages.
4.3. What are the threats/anomalies hindering cultural assets identifiable through your sense of touch? Vandalism (3); Electric scooters; Neglected city benches; Dirty sticky surfaces; Trash (2); Neglected facades (2); Closure of well- known pubs
4.4. What are the threats/anomalies hindering cultural assets identifiable through your sense of smell? Smog (7); Urine (6); Vomit (4); Trash (2); Excrement (4); Dogs’ waste (8); Dirty streets (2); Smell of gasoline (3); Smell of homeless people (2); Smell of eastern spices; Alcohol (2); Bad quality food; Smoke; Weed
4.5. What are the threats/anomalies hindering cultural assets identifiable through your sense of hearing? Car traffic (6): it is impossible to take a nice walk; Tourists pulling their suitcases (3); tourists; drunken tourists shouting (in the morning) (5); drunken people (3); voice of fake drug dealers; crowds in front of bars (2); loud music (5); constructions; shouting profound words; homeless people begging
5. What is the most representative area of your territory’s cultural assets? Related to Jewish heritage: Synagogue and its surrounding (8) Not related to Jewish heritage: Madách Square (4); Klauzál Square (2); Dohány Street (3); Wesselényi Street; Dob Street (2); Gozsdu Yard (2); Király Street; Kazinczy Street (3); Instant Club; Party Quarter
6. According to you, what are the cultural assets (tangible and intangible) that are misused or abandoned? Sirály; Older generation in the neighbourhood; Buildings from the 19th century (6) destroyed facades; Small stores and workshops; Traditional (original) urban tissue; Public spaces (2) and Green spaces; whole neighbourhood (3) abandoned cultural quarter narrative
7. According to you, how can the cultural assets that should be protected be conserved and revitalised? Renovating buildings (3) (same style) instead of demolitions and building new ones; surveillance and police against vandalism; involve citizens in decision making; religious creeds should cooperate; strengthen the cultural quarter narrative in order to enhance open-minded Jewish identity also turn the neighbourhood into desirable for intellectual middle-class families; re-
105 enact, revitalise abandoned places by proposing new functions (such as Rumbach Street Synagogue, Tesla); no more pubs; supporting existing small businesses, workshops, galleries and supporting opening new ones; more galleries and museums
8. Which changes have you found stimulating or revitalized the area according to you? renovating the building in 5 Csányi Street and turning it into a Jewish museum and cultural centre (3); supporting local theatres; the cultural heritage protection activity of ÓVÁS! Association; renovation of buildings, squares, streets (2)
9. If you had to describe this neighbourhood by a colour, what colour would it be? Claret (2); Red; Beige; brown; Dark blue; Blue (2); Green (2); Colourful/rainbow (3); Grey (3) 10. Personal information 10.1 Age 16-25 (4); 25-35 (6); 35-55 (5); 55-76 (7) 10.2 Relation to the neighbourhood (working there, living there, living and working there) living there (13), living and working there (3), working there (6) 10.3 Length of the relation The length of living/working in the area is very diverse, ranging from working there for 6 months to living there for more than 50 years. 10.4 occupation (in case of working in the neighbourhood) pedagogist, nurse, hairdresser, director of tourist department, working at a Jewish gift shop, bartender, barista, small business owner
106 9.3 Additional maps
(Source of information: online desk research)
107
108