Content uploaded by Ana-Maria Branea
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ana-Maria Branea on Dec 09, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Demographic evolution analysis of romanian cities to identify urban development
typologies
Lecturer Dr. Arch. Ana-Maria Branea1
Assist. Dr. Arch. Marius Stelian Gaman1
Assist. Arch. Stefana Badescu1
1 Politehnica University of Timisoara, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Romania
ABSTRACT
The lack of sustainability of urban sprawl type developments has been the subject of
numerous academic and professional research studies. However, a clear identification of
the stages of urban sprawl has not been fully developed as most studies ignore its
incipient phases.
Eastern European cities follow the same path of urban development as their Western
neighbours, often repeating the same mistakes in the blind pursuit for a similar quality
of life. Having an over 50 years old late start in the urban-suburban-neighbouring city
urban migration development pattern could prove crippling unless urban planners learn
from their neighbours’ mistakes and skip a few proven bad steps.
The Romanian centrally developed polycentric urban network based on forced
industrialization is experiencing the impact of demographic and economic change, acute
population loss and poorly planned suburban areas. Urban planning strategies able to
withstand these conditions need to be developed in full knowledge of the current
situation, urban migration patterns and development trends and prognosis.
The aim of this study is to determine the different phases of urban development leading
to an actual unsustainable urban sprawl with a higher focus on early stages.
Through a structured analysis of several Romanian cities, differing in size, geographic
location, social and economic context, and their population over the past 68 years we
can finally identify whether Romania is experiencing urban sprawl and its stage of
development. By analysing EU determined development poles with their surrounding
suburban area, satellite and nearby smaller cities, shrinking or dying urban
developments can be pinpointed.
Keywords: demographic evolution, urban sprawl, shrinking cities, urban migration
patterns
INTRODUCTION
The unsustainability of urban sprawl is a subject upon which most researchers and
practitioners agree, as it registers issues in all three sustainability pillars, social,
environment and economy [1], [2], [3], [4].
The uncontrolled expansion of urban sprawl represents foremost an ecological problem,
destroying large amounts of farmland, woodland, landscape and protected natural areas,
disrupting ecological processes, ecosystems, reducing the availability of habitat for
certain species [1], [2]. Additionally, car dependency, one of the key features of an
urban sprawl type development, entails high levels of consumption of unrenewable
resources and the consequent air and noise pollution.
The social issues of urban sprawl are tightly related to its car dependency, that takes
huge tolls on the inhabitants’ social life. Large amounts of time spent commuting and
the distance between friends directly impacts availability for socializing and the number
of possible interactions. The typical urban planning of a sprawl type development does
not encourage social cohesion due to the low density, large private open spaces, lack of
public facilities and socializing venues. Additionally, an income based social
segregation occurs at the city level [3].
From the economic point of view, according to Peter Katz [4] this type of decentralized,
discontinuous development is only based on a single driving parameter, land cost but
urban sprawl related expenses comprise of much more than individual interests. Due to
the extensive land covered high amounts of resources are used to both build and
maintain these suburbs. These costs are a burden to local authorities as they have to
build and maintain all necessary infrastructure networks, while the low densities ensure
that taxes collected form the inhabitants are insufficient to cover them.
The aesthetic problem of these developments consists of the lack of diversity in the new
buildings, many of them being bland look-alikes, with no architectural value and little
concern for or relation to their natural and built environment.
DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN SPRAWL
While this phenomenon has emerged in the United States in the early 50’s, considering
the state of most European cities after WWII it is easily understandable why it only
manifested there in the early 70’s. During the intense reconstruction following the war’s
destruction and the high demand for residential spaces, most authorities opted for
collective housing using prefabricated large concrete panels. The economic
development of the 60’s and changes in legislation that allowed for suburban
development created the premises for urban sprawl in Western Europe. This has marked
the beginning of a decreasing urban population trend coupled with an increase in built
surface on the cities fringe [5].
Eastern Europe started experiencing this phenomenon only after 1990, in Romania’s
case around 2004. While Western European cities are more compact than those from the
United States they fall short when compared to those in Eastern Europe, due to their
over 40 years of centralized planning during the communist regime. The socialist model
of urban planning, the continuous built environment development strategy, the overall
economic system and lack of a real estate market are key factors that determined a
different urban development of Eastern versus Western European cities. In the 90’s after
the Eastern European cities’ change in political regime a gradual shift occurred to a
consumer society. Politic, economic and geostrategic reforms lead to structural changes
in the built tissue. Most noteworthy of there include a shift towards Western European
markets and from an industry based economy to a service based one; price
liberalization, economic and industrial restructuring; privatization; property rights;
external capital investments; later on accession to European and international
organizations [6].
URBAN SPRAWL DEVELOPMENT STAGES
As most studies on urban sprawl have been carried out based on either American or
Western European cases the stages of urban sprawl have never been fully analysed as
they dealt with a mature phenomenon. Focus was put mainly on analysing its causes or
impact. For Eastern European cities that are still at its dawn, and could possibly take
measures in addressing this issue, these stages are of the foremost importance.
The authors built upon the findings of Stefan Siedentop and Stefan Fina’s [7]
comparison between Eastern and Western German cities further developing their Sprawl
genesis model. In the authors opinion a more detailed approach is necessary.
Figure 1. Urban sprawl genesis diagram
The proposed urban sprawl genesis diagram divides this type of development into three
stages, namely Developing, Mature and Expiring. The Developing stage is the natural
successor of a typical industry fuelled urban development stage, in which cities
experienced a massive population growth but only a relatively small increase in built
surface as most areas are developed as high density collective housing neighbourhoods.
During the Developing stage of urban sprawl these parameters switch behaviour as
cities experience a mild population growth but an exponential increase in surface
resulting in lower overall density (Fig. 1).
The Mature stage is characterised by a decreasing population but a continued increase in
built surface on the cities fringe. In most cases this urban development outreaches the
initial cities administrative territory as it is fuelled by lower land rates, improved
infrastructure, lack of a cohesive urban strategy and consumer preferences for low
density single family housing neighbourhoods [8].
The last stage of urban sprawl defined by the authors as Expiring is typical for a
shrinking city scenario. While the city may experience increasing rates of population
loss its built surface growth may continue at a more reduced pace or it may already be
declining. A scenario currently experienced by many large cities in the United States
consists of an ever expanding city fringe coupled with perforated inner city or suburban
areas. Lower land rates still drive the fringe development while the gaps in the urban
fabric increase.
ANALYSIS OF URBAN SPRAWL DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA
The hypostasis of the study this article is based on was that Romanian cities, as most
Easter European ones, are only experiencing incipient stages of urban sprawl due to
their late start and small overall covered area. Census data from 1948 till 2011for all
Romanian cities [9] were analysed and correlated to 1992 Urban Development Plans
and current satellite images to determine the types of development and densities.
Based on an UN [10] recommended classification of localities by size the authors opted
for a six tier classification and analysed all Romanian cities and each counties rural area
over the past 68 years. The six tiers consist of 500,000 or more inhabitants, 100,000 -
499,000, 50,000 - 99,999, 20,000 - 49,999, 10,000 - 19,999, 5,000 - 9,999 and below
5000 inhabitants.
Figure 2. Percentage of population growth by city size
All cities with a population above 50,000 inhabitants experienced continuous growth till
1992, while all cities below suffered population losses, illustrating a rural to urban
migration pattern, typical to an industrial driven development. The large gap in national
data collection between 1977 and 1992 partially distorts the magnitude of the results,
namely the starting trend of population decline due to emigration following the 1989
change in political regime and opening of borders and the internal migration from
smaller industrial cities to the country’s development poles. The pull factors of
Romanian cities in the push-pull population migration patterns fall short when
compared to those of Western European cities (Fig. 2).
The highest losses have been registered by cities within 50,000 - 99,999 inhabitants,
from a 62% increase to an 8% loss, as most were artificially created and forcibly
inflated to support the productive industry. After regularly finding themselves among
the top 10% Romanian cities with highest growth over the past 68 years, Hunedoara
achieving 430% from 1848 to 1956, while numerous others passing 70%, 100% every
10 years, 6 out of 20 find themselves in the bottom 10% over the last 20 years.
Cities between 20,000 - 49,999, 5,000 - 9,999 and below 5000 inhabitants have
registered a constant decline in population growth, the lower the population the more
drastic the decline. Thill 1992 the majority of settlements, both urban and rural, which
scored the lowest 10% population growth between censuses had below 5000
inhabitants. After 1992 these figures moved to larger and larger cities, scoring in 2011,
over 20% decline in cities between 50,000 - 99,999 inhabitants, while below 5000
inhabitants cities in the proximity of the largest Romanian cities resisted the highest
grouts spurs.
To better understand these patterns of migration the authors further analysed the 10
largest Romanian cities and their surrounding cities and villages.
Between 2002 and 2011 all inner city areas of the analysed cities have suffered a
population loss ranging from 3 to 5% to their fringe urban sprawl type areas, the highest
fringe development having been experienced by Cluj-Napoca, followed by Constanta,
Timisoara and Bucharest (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. Percentage of inner city vs. urban sprawl population for 10 Romanian cities
Figure 4. Urban sprawl development of the 10 largest Romanian cities
It is noteworthy that these suburbs are higher rated on the national social development
index (IDSL), well above their own inner cities [11].
Cluj-Napoca’s rural Florești turned suburban dormitory registered a 205% population
growth between 2002 and 2011, while on average all its urban sprawl developments
reach a 71% growth. It is followed by Timisoara’s Dumbrăvița, with 179% and the
highest ranking IDSL in Romania 25 points above Bucharest and 26 above Timisoara,
and an average urban sprawl growth of 42%.
9 out of the 10 analysed cities experience a constant growth of their urban sprawl
developments, to the detriment of their inner city, as seen in Figure 4 and 5.
Figure 5. Highest and lowest percentage of population growth of urban sprawl developments
Urban development plans from 1992 for the ten analysed cities were compared to
current satellite images to identify the extent of suburban growth, Bucharest registering
the highest, approximately 98% while Galati the lowest, below 15%. All cities
experienced an increase in built surface and a population decline resulting in decreased
density and urban sprawl.
CONCLUSION
The study’s hypothesys was that Romanian cities are experiencing the initial phases of
the Developing stage, growing population and built surface. Comparing the results of
the 10 city analysis with the proposed urban sprawl genesis diagram the authors
disproved the study’s initial hypothesis for most Romanian cities except Cluj-Napoca
and Timisoara. The densily built, centraly planned, polycentric Romanian urban
network, coulped with low impact pull factors and a constant inner city population loss
reached the Mature urban sprawl type development.
Despite the near 50 years late start of Romanian cities in the urban sprawl development
tend an almost complete skip of the Developing stage occured. There results are
disconcerning as later stages of urban sprawl are more damaging to urban sustainability.
However, by comparing each city’s inner city built surface area and that of its urban
sprawl development it is apparent that except Bucharest, none of the other cities are in
danger of reaching the Expiring stage any time soon as there is not enough urban sprawl
bulk to house urban perforations.
REFERENCES
[1] Folke C., Jansson A., Larsson J., Costanza R., Ecosystem appropriation by cities,
Sweden, pp. 167–172, 1997.
[2] Deng S., Wang K., Hong Y., Qi J.G., Spatio-temporal dynamics and evolution of
land use change and landscape pattern in response to rapid urbanization, vol. 92, nr. 3-4,
2009.
[3] Brueckner J. K., Largey A. G., Social interaction and urban sprawl, Journal of Urban
Economics, vol. 64, nr. 0094-1190, pp. 18-34, 2008.
[4] Katz P., The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community, McGraw-Hill
Professional, USA, 1993.
[5] Kasanko M., Barredo J., Lavalle C., McCormick N., Demicheli L., Sagris V.,
Brezger A., Are European cities becoming dispersed?: A comparative analysis of 15
European urban areas, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 77, nr. 1-2, pp 111-130,
2006.
[6] Pichler-Milanovic N., Gutry-Korycka M., Rink D., Sprawl in Post-Socialist City:
The Changing Economic and Institutional Context of Central and Eastern European
Cities, Urban Sprawl in Europe: Landscape, Land-Use Change and Policy, Wiley-
Blackwell, 2008.
[7] Siedentop S., Fina S., Urban Sprawl beyond Growth: from a Growth to a Decline
Perspective on the Cost of Sprawl, Urban Sprawl Beyond Growth, 44th ISCOCARP
Congress, 2008.
[8] Bhatta B., Causes and Consequences of Urban Growth and Sprawl, Analysis of
Urban Growth and Sprawl from Remote Sensing Data, Advances in Geographic
Information Science, USA, pp 17-36, 2010.
[9] Rezultate definitive ale Recensământului Populaţiei şi al Locuinţelor – 2011,
Institutul National de Statistica, http://www.recensamantromania.ro/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/REZULTATE-DEFINITIVE-RPL_2011.pdf, [last accessed in
May 2016]
[10] Population density and urbanization, United Nations Statistics Division,
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sconcerns/densurb/densurbmethods.htm, [last
accessed in May 2016]
[11] Stanciu B., Care sunt cele mai bogate si cele mai sarace localitati din Romania,
http://www.business24.ro/administratie/administratia-locala/care-sunt-cele-mai-bogate-
si-mai-sarace-localitati-din-romania-1528890, [last accessed in May 2016]
