Guest editorial: Heteropolitanization: social and spatial change in Central and East European cities

With more than 20 years of European post-socialist transition behind us, research on the cities of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) has yet to be situated in contemporary urban theory. Placed within a context of growing research interest on CEE cities, this theme issue on Heteropolitanization: Social and Spatial Change in Central and East European Cities takes some steps in this direction by bringing together frontline research on the transformations of urban space in post-socialist Europe. With their experience of state socialism now distant in the past, CEE cities have rapidly transformed from industry-based production spaces into modern hubs for tertiary and quaternary functions (Borén & Gentile, 2007; Leetmaa, Tammaru, & Anniste, 2009). Besides this far-reaching economic transformation, urban changes in CEE are also nested in multiple paths of development that stem from differences in the inherited national variants of the centrally planned economic system, as well as in the specific trajectories of present day societal transformation. In this respect, one of the most intriguing ongoing debates questions the nexus between social and spatial change (Marcin´ czak, 2012; Marcin´ czak, Musterd, & Ste˛pniak, in press; Ruoppila & Kährik, 2003; Sy´ kora, Temelová, Novák, & Ourˇednícˇek, 2006; Tammaru & Leetmaa, 2007). Urban living had a particular meaning under socialism: on the one hand, it signified progress and economic prosperity, but on the other it was intended to foster collective values at the expense of individualism, which was perceived—and sometimes even persecuted— as a bourgeois attitude (Andrusz, 1987; Harris, 1970; Smith, 1996a). Cities were regarded as the focal points for the realization of the aspired fast modernization of the economy and in the creation of the just and classless society (Bater, 1980; Sailer-Fliege, 1999). Large standardized housing estates, whose ubiquitousness is one of the most striking visual features of the CEE city, became the iconic manifestation of these aims (Brade, Herfert, &Wiest, 2009; Gentile & Sjöberg, 2010a, 2010b; Kovács & Herfert, 2012; Kährik & Tammaru, 2010; Temelová, Novák, Ourˇednícˇek, & Puldová, 2011). The social stratification order in CEE countries has been reshuffled since the demise of state socialism in 1989–1991 (Bandelj & Mahutga, 2010; Cao & Nee, 2000; Szelényi & Kostello, 1996). Although the impact of marketization on social inequalities depends on the particular modus operandi of the market in different countries in transition, social inequalities increased considerably as markets transformed social mobility (Aristei & Perugini, 2011; King & Szelényi, 2005). These changes in urban social stratification could be expected to be reflected in urban socio-spatial structures. First and foremost, mobility within urban regions increased substantially (Ahas, Aasa, Silm, & Tiru, 2010; Krišja¯ne & Be¯rzin š, 2012; Novák & Sy´ kora, 2007; Tammaru, 2005): many people were now able to move from the large housing estates to two main urban area types that were underdeveloped or simply neglected under socialism, i.e., the inner city and the suburban ring (Borén & Gentile, 2007; Haase, Grossmann, & Steinführer, 2012; Leetmaa et al., 2009; Marcin´ czak & Sagan, 2011; Sy´ kora, 2009; Temelová & Dvorˇáková, 2012). This is the result of city center’s renaissance through multiple channels of regeneration and revitalization on the one hand (Kiss, 2002; Kovács, 1998, 2009; Temelová, 2007) and the burgeoning of new residential developments beyond the city boundaries on the other (Golubchikov & Phelps, 2011; Kok & Kovács, 1999; Ourˇednícˇek, 2007; Tammaru, Leetmaa, Silm, & Ahas, 2009). The relationship between social and spatial change is, however, not as straightforward as could be expected. In this context, understanding the various legacy and transition-related factors is essential to grasp the nature of the nexus. Showing a wide range of outcomes, this nexus is therefore an important catalyst for the growing number of studies on the diversity of the experiences of urban transformation in CEE. The aim of this special issue is to shed light on a number of these experiences. The goal of this introductory paper is to provide a theoretical context for these developments. For this purpose, we introduce and make use of two idealized city types—Homopolis vs. Heteropolis1—and the corresponding processes—Homopolitanization vs. Heteropolitanization— leading towards them, respectively. Heteropolitanization, is argued to be the prevailing trend in the ongoing processes of transformation in CEE