Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe – A Comparative View of Eastern Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic


Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe – A Comparative View of 
Eastern Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic*

Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski

Abstract: Since the 1990s, reurbanisation has become an increasingly frequent tra-
jectory for urban development. Many formerly shrinking cities have been able to 
stabilise their population or even see new growth. Especially prominent in regions 
like Germany and the UK, but also observed across the whole continent, a lively 
debate on reurbanisation has developed as a reality of today’s, and a potential tra-
jectory for tomorrow’s, cities in Europe. 

Postsocialist Europe has not so far been central in the reurbanisation debate, ei-
ther empirically or theoretically. Subsequently, the postsocialist experience is miss-
ing in the discourse and the existing body of evidence. There is, however, some 
evidence that Czech and Polish cities are also seeing signs of new inner-city growth 
and a trend towards core city stabilisation.

Against this background, the paper scrutinises the issues of reurbanisation and 
new growth after the shrinking of postsocialist cities. The paper uses the approach 
of a contrastive comparison between cities in eastern Germany, where reurbanisa-
tion has developed as the predominant trajectory for many large cities, and for cities 
in Poland and the Czech Republic, where this trend is considerably less prominent. 
It analyses the development of reurbanisation in these cities and their urban regions 
over the last few decades, its characteristics and the determinants triggering or im-
peding it. The paper includes data on a national scale as well as from relevant case 
studies of cities and their urban regions. 

It argues, among other things, that there is no “postsocialist model” with regard 
to infl uencing factors for reurbanisation. Eastern Germany, due to its specifi c post-
socialist situation and transformation trajectory, can be viewed as an “outlier” or 
“hybrid” which exhibits characteristics typical of postsocialist and western welfare 
contexts and which is seeing especially dynamic reurbanisation after a phase of ex-
treme shrinkage. Although there are clear signs of inner-city reurbanisation in Polish 
and Czech cities as well, it seems relatively unlikely that this process will reach the 
same high levels as in East German cities within the coming years. 

Keywords: Reurbanisation · Large cities · Postsocialist Europe · Poland · 
Czech Republic · Eastern Germany

Comparative Population Studies
Vol. 42 (2017): 353-390 (Date of release: 23.03.2018)

Federal Institute for Population Research 2018  URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de
       DOI: 10.12765/CPoS-2018-02en
       URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2018-02en2
    
    

* This article belongs to a special issue on reurbanisation.



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski354

1 Introduction

Across Europe, reurbanisation has evolved as a new trajectory for urban devel-
opment. In different regions of the continent, formerly shrinking cities have either 
stabilised their population after a phase of decline or are seeing new population 
growth. This has manifold impacts both on their economic development and on 
jobs, but also on land use and housing markets as well as on the quality of life of 
the residents. Prominent examples of reurbanisation within the last few decades 
include cities in the UK and Germany, but also cities in other countries in western, 
central and southern Europe.

Reurbanisation is much less well-known and discussed with regard to cities in 
the postsocialist sphere, with the exception of eastern Germany, where many large 
cities have experienced new growth after a longer period of shrinking. There is, 
however, some evidence that Czech and Polish cities, despite continuously expand-
ing suburbanisation, are also showing signs of new inner-city revitalisation, new 
in-migration to these areas, and a trend towards stabilisation of the core city (Stein-
führer et al. 2010). 

Set against this background, the paper discusses whether reurbanisation also 
represents an issue or evolving trend of urbanisation in postsocialist cities. It fo-
cuses on the following guiding questions:

• How did reurbanisation evolve in the postsocialist contexts of Poland, Czech 
Republic and eastern Germany?

• Which factors infl uence the emergence and development of reurbanisation?

• How can the postsocialist reurbanisation perspective contribute to the gen-
eral debate?

The paper includes data on the national sample of cities and their urban regions 
as well as on relevant case studies of the cities concerned. Taking a comparative 
perspective, the paper presents analogies and differences between the three na-
tional contexts and discusses the role and impact of reurbanisation in the postso-
cialist realm/context. In this regard, the role of the hinterland has been investigated 
in this paper as an explanatory factor for the development of the central city (e.g. 
suburbanisation as a reason for shrinking). Some data from the case studies, in-
cluding the urban region, are presented in the annex. However, this paper focuses 
primarily on the development of cities and, therefore, does not explicitly address 
core-hinterland relations. 

The paper is structured as follows: after theoretical refl ections focusing on the 
three countries, and presentation of the materials and methods used, the develop-
ment is discussed at the national scale with reference to the ten largest cities per 
country. Subsequently, two local case studies per country/region are analysed in 
greater depth with respect to meso-scale developments, interactions between city 
and region, as well as drivers of reurbanisation. Finally, the relevance and impact of 
reurbanisation are assessed for postsocialist cities, and the fi ndings related to the 
international debate. 



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 355

2 Reurbanisation in the postsocialist sphere: discussions and debates

Reurbanisation: some comments on the general debate

Before dealing with reurbanisation in the postsocialist sphere, the following para-
graphs expand briefl y on the general debate about the phenomenon which has 
largely been dominated by western scholarly work. Reurbanisation (or “regrowth 
after shrinking”) is not a new issue in the debate surrounding urbanisation or urban 
population development. The idea of a revival of (inner or core) cities within the 
context of former decline has already been discussed by urban researchers and 
planners (in the 1960s and 1970s). 

Reurbanisation as a phase or stage of the urbanisation process appeared in ur-
ban life cycle models that were established in the late 1970s and in the fi rst half of the 
1980s (Berry 1977; Berg et al. 1982). At the time when the models were established, 
reurbanisation, was treated at a more theoretical or hypothetical level (because cit-
ies were mainly characterised by suburbanisation at that time), and reurbanisation 
only occurred when the core city, in contrast to its hinterland, displayed a relative 
or even absolute population (re)gain. The models, although still in use today, have 
been subjected to several improvements (Lever 1993) and criticism (Nyström 1992; 
Kabisch/Haase 2011).

Another strand of discussion deals with the reconcentration of population in 
(large) cities within the overall (regional) context of shrinkage. (Core) cities are seen 
as “islands of growth or stabilisation” within a largely shrinking urban landscape 
(Herfert 2007, on eastern Germany) or as winners in a context of continuous decline 
(Couch et al. 2009). According to these studies, (large) cities either remain as the 
only places with no decline, or initially recover, or become (in contrast to their hin-
terland and/or rural surroundings) destinations for in-migration due to their ameni-
ties and infrastructures. The fi rst comparative studies on this topic discuss impact 
factors, drivers and lessons that can be learnt from these cities about the reasons 
for the change they have been undergoing (Power et al. 2010; Carter et al. 2016; 
Rink et al. 2012; Kabisch et al. 2012). 

Other scholarly work on reurbanisation relates more to the impact of reurbanisa-
tion on the residential and economic level, as well as on housing changes in (inner) 
cities. These studies look at the foundations of reurbanisation and demographic, 
household, or housing change (Haase et al. 2010; Myers 1990; Mulder/Dieleman 
2002; Karsten 2014) or the role of (inner-city) revival in the context of urban re-
naissance policy or neoliberal urban development (Kujath 1988; Brühl et al. 2005; 
Cheshire 1995, 2006; Colomb 2007; Helbrecht 1996; Storper/Manville 2006). Gen-
erally, the debate on “resurgent cities” (Cheshire 2006) and the impact of (new) 
population growth on different “arenas” of urban development is unfocused and, 
to date, such systematisations (e.g. Haase et al. 2005; Brake/Urbanczyk 2012) have 
merely compiled a variety of associations and contexts that relate to regrowth or 
reurbanisation. 



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski356

Reurbanisation as a topic in postsocialist Europe

Hitherto, the debate on reurbanisation has remained by and large a Western de-
bate. The postsocialist perspective on reurbanisation, which is the focus of this 
paper, is generally underrepresented in the international discourse except for the 
East German case. In the following, we briefl y specify how reurbanisation has been 
discussed in our three case study countries/regions, identifying similarities and dif-
ferences in the national debates. 

How did reurbanisation evolve as a topic of the national urban debate? 

In eastern Germany, reurbanisation was initially discussed against the background 
of the shrinking that affected most of the urban sphere during the 1990s. Reurbani-
sation became an issue when large university cities were facing new in-migration; 
these cities have become trailblazers for reurbanisation. Leipzig represents the most 
prominent example of this development because it experienced a phase of extreme 
shrinking and dynamic reurbanisation in just 25 years (Rink 2015). In Germany, re-
urbanisation has been discussed since the 1980s (Kujath 1988). Since the 2000s, 
the debate has focused on, amongst other aspects, the shift of eastern German 
cities away from shrinking towards new growth (Herfert 2007; Haase et al. 2010). 
Recently, the discussion has increasingly concentrated on the new “boom of cities” 
in Germany and, thus, more on a new trend towards spatial development than about 
reurbanisation itself. Reurbanisation, in particular with regard to compaction, also 
emerges as an issue in the debate on urban sustainability and resource-friendly 
development.

The situation is different in Poland. Reurbanisation has emerged in the urban de-
bate there, but no distinct focus has evolved so far. During the postsocialist period, 
the population trajectories of major cities have diversifi ed, but either shrinking or 
stabilisation was observed in most cases, (Steinführer et al. 2010). Generally, subur-
banisation has been the dominant trend within urban development and a key issue 
in urban debates. New growth of cities and/or inner-city districts is being discussed 
more in terms of a potential development; the use of the term reurbanisation is still 
relatively uncommon (Radzimski 2015). Instead, papers tend to focus on revitalisa-
tion (i.e. urban regeneration) or gentrifi cation processes; both terms are sometimes 
used in conjunction with each other (Grabkowska 2015). 

The situation in the Czech Republic shows greater similarities with that in Poland. 
Whereas urbanisation was the prevailing trajectory under socialism, urban regions 
have been experiencing deconcentration tendencies in the postsocialist period due 
to the shrinking of core cities (Sýkora/Posová 2011; Klusáček et al. 2009; Rumpel/
Slach 2012; Krejčí et al. 2011). Apart from recognisable but essentially weak coun-
terurbanisation (Šimon 2014), the process of suburbanisation was the most signifi -
cant urbanisation process in the Czech Republic, observed since the mid-1990s and 
peaking during the mid-2000s (Špačková/Ouředníček 2012; Sýkora/Mulíček 2014). 
Recent studies point to the decline of housing construction in the hinterland of large 
cities due to the economic crisis and a certain degree of saturation in the demand 



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 357

for this type of housing (Kubeš 2015; Kährik et al. 2016). Reurbanisation was thus 
explicitly mentioned in only a few studies and to a limited extent in this context 
(Klusáček/Vaishar 2008; Ouředníček et al. 2015).

Which topics/aspects are discussed and which are not? 

In the eastern German case, research topics focused on the emergence and devel-
opment of reurbanisation, its scope and speed, (mainly young and non-traditional) 
households driving inner-city reurbanisation, as well as inner-city neighbourhoods 
and housing (Haase et al. 2010, 2012; Haase/Rink 2015); topics such as the effects 
of reurbanisation on housing markets and inner-city regeneration/upgrading as well 
as the urban economy and cities as educational hubs received less attention (Holm 
2012; Kujath 2012; Gerhard 2012). Topics addressed include comparisons with other 
national contexts (Rink et al. 2012; Haase et al. 2010 for a cross-European sample 
of four cities), land use and density issues (Wolff et al. 2016) as well as compilations 
of indicators for detecting inner-city reurbanisation (Kabisch et al. 2010). After 2010, 
the debate turned to focus on the recent “boom of cities”, with reurbanisation being 
perceived as part of this larger-scale process. 

The debate in Poland has largely focused on the specifi c features of gentrifi ca-
tion in Polish cities (Górczyńska 2015), the fragmentary and micro-scale character 
of the concentration of wealthier people in inner-city locations (Marcinczak/Sagan 
2011; Marcinczak et al. 2013), or studentifi cation in the Polish/CEE context (Murzyn-
Kupisz/Szmytkowska 2015). However, authors like to refer to the “marginal” (Gądecki 
2013) nature of gentrifi cation in Polish cities, pointing out that there are “no typical 
gentrifi ers” (Beim/Tölle 2008). Some authors interpreted in-fi ll developments as evi-
dence of reurbanisation running parallel to the dominant process of suburbanisation 
(Parysek/Mierzejewska 2005). Also, drawing on international debates, reurbanisa-
tion is sometimes placed in opposition to the process of gentrifi cation (Grabkowska 
2015). While reurbanisation often tends to be associated with the cyclical model of 
Berg et al. (1982), some recent contributions have also treated the new growth of 
cities as an empirical issue (Radzimski 2015) and noted rising dissatisfaction with 
the quality of suburban housing among younger age groups (Kajdanek 2012). Urban 
planning and policies still favour suburbanisation (Radzimski 2014). 

In the Czech debate, studies more often drew attention to inner-city regenera-
tion. Although neglected under socialism, inner-city neighbourhoods have attract-
ed investment and been targeted by new in-migrants in the postsocialist period. 
Numerous studies either discuss the general development of inner-city neighbour-
hoods (Špačková et al. 2016a) or elaborate in greater detail on processes such as 
revitalisation, gentrifi cation and brownfi eld regeneration (Sýkora 2006; Kunc et al. 
2014; Frantál et al. 2015). Or they discuss the conditions for, or actors involved in, 
inner-city change (Steinführer 2006; Klusáček/Vaishar 2008), or the development of 
particular neighbourhoods and their driving forces (Temelová 2007; Ilík/Ouředníček 
2007; Kubeš 2009). Some authors anticipate the development of reurbanisation and 
the weakening of suburbanisation in the future (Čermák  2009; Kubeš 2015). Quali-
tative investigations have revealed evolving residential preferences for inner-city 



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski358

housing by some population groups, so-called transitory urbanites (Steinführer et 
al. 2010; Haase et al. 2012; Kährik et al. 2016). In addition, Ouředníček et al. (2015) 
emphasise the potential of the “back-to-the city” movement of representatives of 
the second generation of suburbanites (Ouředníček et al. 2015) in contrast to their 
parental generation (Špačková et al. 2016b).

Concluding and cross-referencing, it is apparent that the fact that reurbanisation 
has not been discussed to any great extent in the postsocialist realm is due to the 
lack of evidence or importance attached to the subject, and that other issues like 
suburbanisation remain the prevailing processes of urbanisation. Eastern Germany 
is an exception due to its distinct and specifi c trajectory after 1990. Clearly, no com-
mon “postsocialist debate” on reurbanisation has developed. While the German 
debate developed dynamically and had an international orientation, the Polish and 
Czech debates remain at an initial, “incipient” stage of describing potential or small-
scale new developments. In its empirical sections, the paper provides an overview 
of evidence on reurbanisation at the national level and selected cities of the three 
countries.

3 Defi nitions, materials and methods 

For the purpose of this paper, reurbanisation is understood as a signifi cant increase 
of the population of a city (in administrative terms), following a longer phase of 
decline/shrinking. In line with the urban life cycle models mentioned above, we 
use population development as the main indicator in order to identify where and 
when reurbanisation occurs. With reference to other scholarly work dealing with 
urbanisation trajectories in general and shrinking cities in particular, we consider 
population change to be a simple and frequently used indicator for representing a 
complex process. Moreover, it is readily accessible and comparatively easy to in-
terpret, allowing conclusions to be drawn about adjacent processes such as house-
hold change (Beauregard 2009), or economic growth, and/or the attraction of new 
investment (Turok/Mykhnenko 2007). In order to clearly distinguish reurbanisation 
from “simple growth as such” (Cheshire 2006: 1232), our defi nition focuses on a 
longer phase of shrinking that predates the period in which shrinking comes to a 
halt and the population increases (again). For our analysis, this means that regrowth 
has to be interpreted within the context of previous shrinking/decline. We are well 
aware that the phenomenon of reurbanisation is much more complex and affects 
the fi elds of economic and job growth, public and private investment, and funding/
support schemes at supra-local levels. The relationships between (new) population 
growth and these factors will be expanded on in the second part of our empirical 
section, based on case studies in the three regions. 

In order to meet the research objectives, we follow a two-step approach: a) First-
ly, we use quantitative data to show the development of the ten largest cities per 
country/region, incorporating the population development of cities and their urban 
regions as well as the dominance of natural and/or migratory growth (data are pre-
sented in the Appendix); we thus obtain a typology of trajectories that generalise 



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 359

the population development of 30 cities into 5 types (Fig. 7). b) Secondly, we pro-
vide a more in-depth analysis of two selected case studies per country, including an 
examination of intra-urban developments, patterns of migration, and driving forces 
of reurbanisation. Using this two-dimensional approach, we believe we adequately 
refl ect the different ways in which regrowth emerges and develops in our case 
study regions.

a) For the quantitative analysis at the national level, we focused on the ten larg-
est cities per country in order to refl ect the different urban systems in Poland, 
the Czech Republic and eastern Germany, covering various city sizes and the 
diverging signifi cance of the cities within each country. In order to investigate 
reurbanisation phenomena and to shed light on the trajectories of each city, 
we used population data from 1970 to 2015 (every fi ve years; from 1990: 
yearly). However, some variations occur, caused by changes in the defi nition 
of the population during a census round that have not been recalculated by 
the national statistical offi ces. This is, for example, the case in Poland (espe-
cially in Warsaw), where, from 1999 onwards, a recalculation of population 
numbers by the statistical offi ce followed the 2002 population census defi ni-
tion), leading to variations between 1998 and 1999.1 In Germany, this is not 
the case because all data before the 2011 census are based on estimations. 
Following the 2011 census, Poland recalculated its fi gures which led to varia-
tions between 2009 and 2010. In Germany and the Czech Republic, variations 
occurred between 2010 and 2011.

  Total population data were collected for the core cities and the surrounding 
hinterlands, which were defi ned by the merging of all adjacent municipali-
ties (NUTS4; Poland: powiat, Czech Republic: okres, Germany: erweiterter 
Verfl echtungsraum2). All boundaries of the spatial units have been frozen in 
the most recent status (2015) for which recalculations have been made. This 
allows comparisons over time and helps explain the role the hinterland plays 
in the core city development, in line with urban life cycle models (Berg et al. 
1982; Cheshire 1995; Hall/Hay 1980). Finally, data on the natural evolution 
and migratory balance were used in order to allow conclusions to be drawn 
about the driving forces behind population growth and decline and, espe-
cially, about the turning points of development paths. We develop a typology 
of trajectories, including continuous population loss, reurbanisation, etc., for 
all 30 cities within the three countries in a cross-national comparison. This 
makes it possible to test our working defi nition because we take into account 
the previous development and compare it to the current situation. 

1 This was the fi rst census since 1988, and it revealed that, in some cases, the resident population 
differed signifi cantly from the actually recorded numbers.

2 http://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Raumbeobachtung/Raumabgrenzungen/Grossstadtre-
gionen/Grossstadtregionen.html



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski360

b) For the in-depth case studies, we chose two cities per country/region that 
are typical of some overarching trends and that are in line with the typology 
developed earlier. We chose two cities per country/region in order to a) com-
pare and/or contrast two cases and b) detect possible anomalies which may 
upset the comparative picture if just one city per country/region is selected. 
For the selection, we applied the following criteria: a) measurable popula-
tion loss of the city in the 1990s/early 2000s over at least 10 years; b) move 
towards reurbanisation within the last 5-10 years or at least visible potential 
for reurbanisation; c) signifi cant role for the country/region and d) existing 
expert knowledge and research expertise on the selected cities. For east-
ern Germany, we chose Leipzig and Dresden to demonstrate the prominent 
change from shrinking towards reurbanisation within only a few years in a 
number of larger university cities. In the Czech Republic, we consider the 
case of the capital of Prague because it represents a valid example that ex-
plains the character and driving forces behind population regrowth in the 
Czech context, and the city of Brno which represents a major, non-capital city 
with fewer dynamics and without the role and features of a capital city. For 
Poland, we present the cases of Wroclaw which shows emerging reurbanisa-
tion, and Poznań which, due to the population development of the inner city, 
is still shrinking but has exhibited potential reurbanisation of the core city 
within the last few years. For all six cities, we collected population data on the 
intra-urban level (districts) in order to answer the questions whether and to 
what extent reurbanisation is spreading homogenously over the city or not. 
Moreover, in order to better understand the stage and emergence of reurban-
isation as well as driving and hindrance processes, we present information on 
housing trends and preferences, local economic developments, large-scale 
investments and revitalisation projects and policies which is based on previ-
ous academic work, strategic documents, municipal statistics and analyses. 
Described trends are supported by fi gures where helpful or necessary, with 
no claim to their completeness. The type and structure of information given 
per case study follow a common scheme and logic without being complete-
ly identical. The main idea behind the case study descriptions is to provide 
comparable storylines that go beyond a national-scale quantitative analysis 
and illustrate the emergence and development of reurbanisation at the local 
level within specifi c city contexts, in a qualitative and explorative manner. 

4 Empirical results 

4.1 National scale

Poland
In the case of Poland, considerably divergent urban population developments can 
be observed in the postsocialist period. While cities like Łódź or Katowice expe-
rienced longer periods of shrinking, cities like Warsaw and Cracow experienced 



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 361

growth. With an increase of 63,000 residents, Warsaw was the outstanding leader 
in terms of growth for the period 1990-2015, whereas Łódź encountered the stron-
gest decline (of 147,000 people). In a number of cities, including Wrocław, Poznań, 
Gdańsk, Szczecin and Bydgoszcz, we observe a moderate trend towards shrinking 
with or without growth interruptions. Wrocław and Gdańsk have been experiencing 
an episode of regrowth since 2010. Lublin, by contrast, continued to grow up to the 
late 1990s, when most other cities were already shrinking, but after 2000, it shifted 
from growth to decline. 

The natural balance contributed negatively to the population development of 
most cities, with the exception of Lublin (+7,400 persons) and, to a smaller extent, 
Gdańsk. This was mainly due to the very low birth rates which prevailed in Poland 
throughout the postsocialist period (1.32 in 2015). The birth defi cit reached its nadir 
between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s. Several cities, including Warsaw, Cra-
cow and Poznań, recently achieved a birth surplus. The increase was driven by the 
effect of demographic waves, with baby boom cohorts entering childbearing age. In 
absolute terms, Łódź lost by far the largest number of residents due to the negative 
natural balance (-122,600 inhabitants). 

The overall effects of migration in Polish cities were mixed. While Warsaw, Cra-
cow, Wrocław and Szczecin took advantage of an infl ow surplus, the six other cities 
were confronted with a net loss. Warsaw was clearly ahead of all the other cities, 
with a net gain of +128,900 people. Poznań, by contrast, experienced the greatest 
net loss of -26,100 people. In most cities, out-migration started to predominate from 
the late 1990s onwards, and its negative effect tended to accumulate over time. 
More recently, this trend has been reversed, but for a number of cities (Bydgoszcz, 
Katowice, Lublin, Łódź and Poznań) the net effect was still negative.

Looking at the urban regions, in most cases the decline of the core cities was 
accompanied by a population increase in the hinterlands, resulting in a positive 
net overall change for the region. However, in Łódź and Katowice, the population 
declined also at the agglomeration level. The urban region of Warsaw experienced 
the largest gain of over 330,000 people. A substantial increase of almost 100,000 
residents also took place in Poznań’s agglomeration which is particularly striking 
given the ongoing shrinking of the core city. 

While a number of factors are likely to have affected the postsocialist demo-
graphic trajectories of Polish cities, the role of several key factors including the 
economy, education, consumption patterns, planning and policies should be un-
derlined here. In the early 2000s, the poor performance of the Polish economy, with 
unemployment rates peaking at 20 percent, triggered a wave of migration following 
the opening of labour markets in a number of EU countries. More recently, however, 
more favourable economic conditions again increased the incentives for migration 
to cities. The positive effects are, however, unevenly distributed. While cities like 
Warsaw and Poznań are actually facing a workforce defi cit, old industrialised cities 
like Łódź and Katowice are still struggling to restructure their economy (Marcińczak/
Sagan 2011). The economic success of Polish cities is strongly related to their per-
formance in higher education. As an outcome of social change and a higher reputa-
tion of university education, the number of university students in Poland increased 



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski362

between 1990 and the late 2000s from 400,000 to almost 2,000,000, leading to a 
substantial migration towards cities hosting high-ranked universities like Warsaw, 
Cracow, Poznań, Wrocław and Gdańsk (Sojkin et al. 2012). In short, a solid base 
of knowledge-intensive economy combined with educational opportunities has 
been one of the key determinants of rural-to-urban migration in postsocialist Po-
land. More recently, foreign migration has also become an important factor. Ap-
proximately one million migrants from the Ukraine were counted in Poland in 2016, 
making them by far the largest group of foreign migrants. Most of these migrants 
have arrived in the last few years following the outbreak of war in eastern Ukraine 
as well as the related economic depression. It is, however, diffi cult to estimate the 
impact of foreign migration at the city level, as offi cial data are only provided at the 
regional level.

The positive migration effects of rural-to-urban migration were counterbalanced 
by a prevailing trend towards suburbanisation at the urban agglomeration level. 
Suburbanisation could be regarded as a spatial refl ection of changing consump-
tion patterns. For instance, the amount of outstanding mortgage debt in Poland has 
quadrupled in just a few years, refl ecting the strong demand for home ownership 
(Radzimski 2014). This trend, coupled with the increasing motorisation rate and a 

Fig. 1: Population development of Poland’s ten largest cities 1970-2015 
(1970/71 = 100)

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

1970/71 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Year

Warszawa

Kraków

ód

Wroc aw

Pozna

Gda sk

Szczecin

Lublin

Bydgoszcz

Katowice

Source: Own calculation



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 363

deregulated land use planning system (Halleux et al. 2012), created favourable con-
ditions for the growth of urban hinterlands.

Summing up, it can be concluded that only some of the largest Polish cities dem-
onstrate shrinking followed by regrowth (Fig. 1). Reurbanisation tendencies are not 
as clearly visible as in eastern Germany. While in some cities, like Warsaw and Cra-
cow, growth has prevailed for most of the post-transition period, other cities have 
encountered longer periods of shrinking. Recently, the migration balance has im-
proved in a number of cities. However, in only two cases (Wrocław and in Gdańsk) 
this increase has caused a change from shrinking to regrowth. While economically 
motivated rural-to-urban migration creates a potential for reurbanisation, this trend 
is counterbalanced by (continuous) residential suburbanisation.

Czech Republic
In the last half decade, Czech cities have experienced a variety of urbanisation pro-
cesses. Under socialism, strong state-led urbanisation related to the extensive con-
struction of housing estates was dominant in urban regions (Fig. 2). Cities gained 
population mainly through internal migration but also as a result of the positive 
natural balance (primarily in the 1970s due to propopulation measures). Suburbani-
sation was practically non-existent and only little investment reached municipalities 
in the hinterlands of large cities; both processes resulted in population losses in 
these areas, especially during the 1980s. 

After the breakdown of state socialism, almost all of the ten largest cities ex-
perienced population decline between 1990 and 2005 and lost between 2 percent 
and 8 percent of their 1990 population, with Ostrava and Ústí nad Labem suffering 
the most severe losses. The decline was driven by negative natural and migration 
balances alike. Two main reasons caused losses by migration. First, some cities 
found themselves in an unfavourable economic situation; economic decline primar-
ily affected the cities previously dependent on heavy industry or mining (Ostrava, 
Ústí nad Labem). Second, the suburbanisation process was responsible for out-of-
city migration fl ows; it started in the region around Prague but also around many 
second-tier cities in the second half of the 1990s. Signifi cant suburbanisation arose 
as a result of several factors. At the level of national policies, the state focused on 
supporting new housing construction through several measures (e.g. building sav-
ings, mortgages). The revitalisation of the pre-war housing stock was not a priority 
in the fi rst years. Also, the formerly strict planning system weakened, and every 
municipality gained considerable planning power. As a result, the rules for housing 
construction were, in most cases, more fl exible outside the core cities. Finally, the 
preference for a particular type of housing (e.g. a house with garden), which was a 
scarce resource under state socialism, was signifi cant on the demand side.

Since the second half of the 2000s, some of the large cities have shown re-
urbanisation tendencies. The population gains were mainly driven by migration, 
more specifi cally by positive migration balances of foreigners (mostly Ukrainians, 
Slovaks, Russians, and Vietnamese) while ethnic Czechs continued to leave for sub-
urbia. Furthermore, some of the cities’ population increase can also be ascribed to 
positive natural balance, although its importance and duration varied among the cit-



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski364

ies. In the last decade, the urban population has experienced a “population boom”, 
connected to strong cohorts, born in the 1970s, reaching their childbearing ages. At 
the same time, however, suburbanisation even increased in intensity in this period, 
resulting in population growth in most of the urban regions. 

However, a few years after the start of the economic crisis in 2008, the growth 
trend was interrupted and the number of in-migrants (especially of foreigners) 
sharply decreased. In some cases migration losses only led to a reduction of popu-
lation gains (e.g. in Prague), while other cities began to lose population again (e.g. 
Olomouc). Suburbanisation also slowed down as a result of lower demand for new 
housing. Recently, a slow reversal of trends associated with the recovery following 
the economic crisis can be observed. The population development of cities that 
previously lost population seems to have stabilised: Their losses became increas-
ingly marginal (e.g. Brno) and some of them even turned towards reurbanisation 
(e.g. Plzeň). 

As already indicated, the population growth in cities was mainly connected to 
their economic performance and the need for additional workforce which brought 
international immigrants to the cities (Čermák 2009). Almost all large cities exhib-

Fig. 2: Population development of the Czech Republic’s ten largest cities 
1970-2015 (1970/71 = 100)

Source: Own calculation

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

1970/71 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Year

Praha

Brno

Ostrava

Plze

Liberec

Olomouc

Ústí nad Labem

Hradec Králové

eské Bud jovice

Pardubice



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 365

ited a positive migration balance for the group of foreigners in the postsocialist 
period; its intensity was highly dependent on the economic development. 

Apart from job-related migration, it was the specifi c housing preferences of 
the nascent middle classes that were responsible for continuous suburbanisa-
tion. These tendencies prevailed in most cities and their intensity was linked to the 
housing market dynamics (suburban housing construction). In the last few years, 
however, some cities also experienced stagnating out-migration juxtaposed with 
an increase in the number of in-migrants which led to a modest yet overall gain of 
population in recent years (especially in Prague, Plzeň, and Liberec). This could be 
considered a sign of changing housing preferences towards city-mindedness.

In sum, it should be stressed that both suburbanisation and emergent reurban-
isation have coexisted in most of the Czech urban regions in the last ten years. From 
the regional perspective, a variegated picture of population development can be 
observed in the ten largest Czech cities. Prague, Plzeň, and Liberec represent excep-
tional examples of (almost) continuous growth during the past ten years, followed 
by a shorter period of decline. Ostrava has been constantly losing population since 
the early 1990s and is likely to see this trend continue in the future. Other cities (Olo-
mouc, České Budějovice, Hradec Králové) experienced episodic decline. A fourth 
group of cities exhibited stabilisation of population development (Brno, Pardubice, 
Ústí nad Labem).

Eastern Germany
Reurbanisation in eastern Germany is clearly a product of the exceptional popula-
tion losses of its cities. Most of the large cities in the GDR (except Potsdam and 
Rostock) had already ceased to grow in the 1980s; Leipzig even began to shrink in 
the 1960s (Fig. 3). The reasons are basically decreasing birth rates since the 1970s, 
out-migration due to bad housing conditions in city centres as well as out-migration 
as a consequence of national industrial planning policies and environmental pollu-
tion. Since 1985, seven of the ten largest eastern German cities have lost popula-
tion. The exceptions are the capital Berlin and nearby Potsdam, and Rostock. With 
the exception of Berlin, 1990 saw the continuation and reinforcement of shrinking in 
every city – now dominated by East-West migration, state-funded suburbanisation 
and country-wide job-driven out-migration due to industrial erosion – all accompa-
nied by a sharp decrease in (already low) birth rates to the lowest levels. Shrinking 
had become the predominant trajectory of urban development in eastern Germany, 
exhibiting dramatic dynamics. Some cities lost more than 10 percent of their popu-
lations (e.g. Chemnitz, Leipzig, Halle, Magdeburg, Erfurt).

Around 2000, the trend started to change towards reurbanisation (Fig. 3). While 
in many core cities the population shrinking came to a halt and the population even 
started to grow again, suburbanisation nearly stopped and suburban communities 
even began to shrink. The reasons are basically rooted in changing national policies. 
First, housing and living conditions have been improved due to state benefi ts (tax 
relief). Second, state funded programmes such as Stadtumbau helped to stabilise 
the housing market. Both interventions led to affordable and attractive housing con-
ditions which pulled in new immigrants. Third, a lot of money was invested in the 



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski366

infrastructure together with the increased relevance of universities as a guarantee 
of high earnings. 

In contrast to the shrinking, however, reurbanisation was very heterogeneous 
during the 2000s. Analysis of the trajectories of all cities reveals that, despite the 
general shrinking trends in the 1990s and stabilisation/reurbanisation in the 2000s, 
and even more so in the 2010s, the population dynamics of East German cities dif-
fer considerably. The most prominent examples of the new stabilisation and growth 
(albeit at moderate yearly rates until the late 2000s) were cities such as Dresden and 
Leipzig, but also smaller university cities such as Jena, Erfurt, and Potsdam (which 
have regrown, not at the rates, e.g., of Leipzig, but nevertheless steadily). Subse-
quently, these three cities now exceed their 1970 population by 125/140 percent, 
whereas the most prominent examples of reurbanisation, Dresden and Leipzig, ex-
ceed the 1970 population by only 8 percent (Dresden) or reached the 1970 level only 
in 2016 (Leipzig). However, other cities faced an even longer period of shrinking and 
only experienced low growth rates during the 2000s. The reasons are rooted in 
structural problems of the cities’ economies, the lack of births and the lack of avail-
able inner-city housing; relevant examples are Rostock (ship building) and Magde-

Fig. 3: Population development of eastern Germany’s ten largest cities 1970-
2015 (1970/71 = 100)

Source: Own calculation

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

1970/71 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Year

Berlin

Potsdam

Chemnitz

Dresden

Leipzig

Halle an der Saale

Magdeburg

Erfurt

Jena

Rostock



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 367

burg (machine construction). In contrast, shrinking rates declined in the second half 
of the 2000s, also in cities such as Halle that had belonged, Europe-wide, to the 
most dynamically shrinking cities until then. This shows that the duration and sever-
ity of shrinking have a considerable combined impact on how recovery takes place.

In the fi rst half of the 2010s, reurbanisation became the overarching trajectory 
for all large cities in eastern Germany. Yearly growth rates differed; whilst some 
cities, such as Halle, Chemnitz, or Magdeburg, exhibited either stabilisation or very 
modest growth from 2011 onwards, rates have skyrocketed in Leipzig (2.5 percent 
since 2011) and in Dresden (1.3 percent until 2015). Whereas cities such as Jena and 
Potsdam – but also Berlin and Erfurt – saw a comparatively short interruption of 
growth through shrinking, the cities of Halle, Chemnitz, and Magdeburg have sta-
bilised only recently at rates of approximately 80 percent of their 1970 population. 
The migration patterns of Germans are important for the reurbanisation currently 
being observed, but so, too, is legal international immigration – especially in larger 
cities – and refugees. Chemnitz is the initial arrival point for refugees entering the 
federal state of Saxony, which might have an impact on recent growth rates. Thus, 
for some cities it is not clear if reurbanisation is currently taking place as we have 
seen in Leipzig or Dresden, or if these are short-term stabilisation phenomena aris-
ing from national trends (e.g. distribution of refugees).

Thus, while the general trend towards reurbanisation is clearly due to a national 
trend in Germany as a whole, the differences in the time at which reurbanisation 
emerged and how modest/prominent the process was, depend to a marked extent 
on the specifi c situation of a city and show a clear connection to the previous period 
of shrinking. 

4.2 Zooming in: detecting the development in urban regions (case 
studies)

Poland (Poznań and Wrocław) 
Two contrasting case studies in Poland are discussed: Wrocław as an example of a 
recent shift towards regrowth, and Poznań where there appears to be potential for 
reurbanisation but where suburbanisation remains the predominant trend.

The population of Wrocław started to decline in the early 1990s, reaching its 
nadir in 2010 (631,000 residents). Subsequently, the number of residents increased 
again to 636,000 by 2015. The population increase due to migration between 1990 
and 2015 amounted to 20,000 people, i.e. more or less equal to the loss caused by 
natural decline. An increase in migration combined with an improving but still nega-
tive natural balance jointly contributed to the recent episode of regrowth which can 
be observed from 2010 onwards. Against the background of this change the local 
economy is thriving which has earned Wrocław a reputation as one of the most 
prosperous urban regions, not just in Poland but in Central and Eastern Europe 
as a whole. Recently, Wrocław’s agglomeration attracted a number of important 
investors including Amazon, Google, LG and Volvo. In 2015, the registered unem-
ployment rate was 3.3 percent. The role of the city as a centre of higher education 



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski368

is important and growing, with 120,000 students enrolled at universities, making 
Wrocław the third largest academic city in Poland after Warsaw and Cracow. 

Looking at the intra-urban structure of the city, we fi nd continuous shrinking in 
the inner city contrasted by ongoing growth in peripheral districts (Fig. 4). It appears 
that in Wrocław, a substantial proportion of the suburbanisation is taking place 
within the boundaries of the city, which comprises an area of 293 km2. Wrocław was 
particularly successful in fostering regulatory planning: 57 percent of the city area 
is covered by regulatory plans, compared to 30 percent at the national level. With 
104,000 housing units approved between 2000 and 2016, the increase in housing 
supply in Wrocław was twice that of Poznań. At the same time, the population of the 
hinterlands increased by 60,000 which confi rms the importance of the suburbanisa-
tion process as the predominant tendency in the Wrocław agglomeration (Książek/
Suszczewicz 2017). However, the suburbs of Wrocław grew less dynamically than 
those of Cracow or Gdańsk, not to mention Poznań where the increase was two 
times higher. As for the inner-city districts, the lack of urban regeneration measures 
seems to be a major factor in the continuous out-migration. An urban revitalisation 
programme was launched in Wrocław in 2005. However, in 2016, the city spent 
roughly 2.5 million euros on revitalisation projects;this is a considerable amount 
but far from what could be regarded as necessary for achieving comprehensive 
regeneration of the inner-city districts.

In Poznań, the population has declined continuously in the postsocialist period, 
with a tendency to accelerate over time. Despite a birth surplus in the early 2000s, 
the overall contribution of the natural balance was negative (-14,000 people). The 
birth defi cit was coupled with a prevailing out-migration tendency which resulted 
in a loss of 26,000 people. In absolute terms, Poznań had the highest rate of out-
migration among the ten largest Polish cities. Between 2007 and 2010, the annual 
net loss due to migration exceeded 3,000 people per year. Recently, the migration 
balance has improved somewhat, but the loss still remains substantial. In terms of 
the economy and the labour market, Poznań ranks comparable to or even somewhat 
better than Wrocław, with a registered unemployment rate of 2.4 percent in 2015. 
Amazon, GlaxoSmithKline, Solaris and Volkswagen are among the most important 
investors in the urban region. With 116,000 students, Poznań continues to be one of 
the major academic hubs in Poland, although recently it surrendered its third posi-
tion to Wrocław. 

Poznań shows a similar pattern of change in the intra-urban structure to Wrocław, 
with growth occurring in the outskirts and shrinking continuing in the core districts 
(Fig. 4). In contrast to Wrocław, however, the overall effect of these changes remains 
negative. The peripheral districts of Poznań appear to have absorbed a comparably 
low proportion of suburban migration. With a 42 percent share of the city area cov-
ered by regulatory plans, Poznań performed better than the national average, but 
signifi cantly worse than Wrocław. The city also faces certain infrastructural defi -
ciencies in the peripheral districts (Radzimski 2011). The number of housing units 
approved between 2000 and 2015 amounted to 51,000, which is less than one would 
expect in comparison to other large Polish cities. In the same period, the population 
of the hinterland increased by 146,000 people, placing Poznań only behind War-



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 369

saw in terms of suburban growth. Among the ten largest Polish cities, Poznań has 
the highest rate of suburban out-migration. This is probably caused by an insuffi -
cient supply of new housing on the one hand, and inadequate urban regeneration in 
the core districts on the other. Poznań adopted its fi rst revitalisation programme in 
2006, but for years the regeneration process was neglected on the political agenda. 
In 2016, the city assigned 1.5 million euros to revitalisation projects. 

Comparing the two cases, we conclude that the main difference between the 
population trajectories of Poznań and Wrocław was due to migration. With regard 
to the natural balance, both cities followed a similar trajectory, refl ecting the waves 
of the population pyramid, with the baby-boom cohorts of the 1980s entering child-
bearing age around the mid-2000s and boosting the number of births. The develop-
ment of migration was more differentiated and probably more dependent on local 
factors, as is also the case for suburbanisation. The currently prevailing demand on 
the housing market is driving further suburbanisation, which is likely to continue 
in the coming years. As we have shown for Wrocław, the proportion of suburbani-
sation a city accommodates within its boundaries might be a key factor shaping 
population trajectories. Considering reurbanisation in the inner-city districts, much 
will depend on the progress of urban regeneration policies and the measures taken. 
Also, international migration has recently emerged as an issue of potential impor-
tance for urban contexts, but little is known as yet about its spatially disaggregated 
effects, and its long-term signifi cance is diffi cult to predict.

Czech Republic (Prague and Brno) 
Whereas the reurbanisation process has not been generally strong in the last few 
decades, Prague represents a unique situation and can be considered a prominent 
example of a city which is regrowing after a short period of shrinking in the 1990s. 

Fig. 4: Population development in Wrocław and Poznań at the district level 
2000/2001-2015

WROCŁAW
2001-2015

POZNAŃ
2001-2015

0 5 102,5
kmmin = -2.3 (Rejon ulicy Krakowskiej)

max = 28.0 (Jagodno)
min = -2.1 (Jeżyce)
max = 11.0 (Strzeszyn)

Average annual population change (in %)

-0.5 10 42

Source: Own calculation



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski370

Brno, on the other hand, represents “an average city” that exhibits some reurbanisa-
tion tendencies but which are regularly interrupted by periods of population losses. 

After the completion of the last housing estates in the early 1990s, Prague start-
ed to lose population in 1993. The population loss was driven mainly by the nega-
tive natural balance (due to low fertility rates) and, from the late 1990s onwards, 
also by suburbanisation processes. The population decline continued until 2002 
and Prague lost 57,000 inhabitants (almost 5 percent of the 1992 population). Since 
2002, Prague has experienced relatively continuous population growth, with the 
most intensive gains occurring during the late 2000s. In total, Prague gained 107,000 
people over the last 13 years.

This development is primarily connected to the economic boom that attracted 
new residents (from both other regions of the country as well as from abroad) and 
to the positive natural balance evident since 2006. Even though Prague’s economy 
underwent a considerable transformation, related to deindustrialisation in the post-
socialist period, the city held an exclusive position. As a capital city, Prague rep-
resents a gateway to the Czech Republic and serves as a (Central East) European 
centre for selected global fi rms (e.g. Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, the Siemens 
group). The intensive concentration of progressive economic activities makes the 
local labour market very attractive and the unemployment rate has traditionally re-
mained very low (Feřtrová/Temelová 2011); it reached 4.1 percent in 2016. In ad-
dition, Prague is the largest higher education hub with about 150,000 university 
students in 2014.

At the intra-urban level, the character of the population change has been rather 
varied (see Fig. 5). Some inner-city neighbourhoods started to gain population af-
ter the late 2000s, following an extended period of shrinking that was particularly 
intensive in the late socialist era and also continued under postsocialism due to the 
process of commercialisation. Population growth is recorded mainly in neighbour-
hoods with new housing construction. Indeed, the city’s planners have recently 
been articulating the need for brownfi eld conversion and support housing develop-
ments within the compact city (e.g. Metropolitní plán 2016). In addition, considerable 
suburban development took place within Prague’s loosely delimited administrative 
boundaries (comprising an area of 496 km2) and resulted in a dynamic population 
increase of 58,000. 

In the case of Brno, the population development was very similar to that of 
Prague under socialism and also during the 1990s. However, regrowth tendencies 
appeared later than in Prague and have been less stable. Brno started to gain new 
population only between 2008 and 2011. Subsequently, the city began to lose pop-
ulation again, although with less intensity, and, only from 2014 onwards did the 
population decrease seem to stabilise. Since the natural balance has been positive 
since 2006, the changes in population development are due to varying migration 
patterns.

First, the lower ability to retain a positive migration balance is attributable to the 
poor economic situation. Even though Brno was able to attract many companies 
from progressive economic sectors (e.g. IMB, Honeywell) its economy, which was 
dominated by industry at the end of the state socialist period, had diffi culties in 



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 371

coping with restructuring. In addition, Brno was also more seriously hit by the eco-
nomic crisis that started in 2008. This is refl ected in the higher unemployment rate 
which has varied between 7.5-9 percent since 2010. 

Second, suburbanisation is also responsible for population losses, resulting in 
Brno’s hinterland growing constantly over the past 15 years. Compared to Prague, 
suburbanisation within administrative boundaries has been less intensive and only 
accounts for approximately 15 percent of the new housing construction since 2000 
(cf. 29 percent in Prague). In addition, the intensity of new housing construction is 
slightly lower compared to Prague; approximately 21,000 new housing units were 
completed between 2000 and 2015 in Brno compared to 84,000 units in Prague.

Third, because of the problem of (non)registration for permanent residency 
among certain sociodemographic groups, population gains may remain hidden in 
the offi cial statistics (Steinführer et al. 2010). Indeed, experts estimate that the ac-
tual number of new inhabitants in Brno – including those not registered – amounts 
to almost 50,000, most of them unregistered persons without permanent residency 
and foreigners staying illegally (Seidenglanz et al. 2013). In addition, with almost 
80,000 university students, Brno is the second largest academic hub in the country. 
Similarly to Prague, the planning authorities see potential future residential devel-
opment in the revitalisation of the inner city brownfi elds.

Comparing the two cases, the similarity in population development derives from 
relatively high fertility rates. This has resulted in gains since the mid-2000s because 
of the positive natural balance. This is connected to the strong cohorts born in the 
1970s entering childbearing age. The main differences in the demographic trajec-
tories result from diverse migration patterns: (i) Suburbanisation processes were 
mainly responsible for the negative migration balance of the (ethnic) Czechs in both 
cities. Whereas Brno still continues to exhibit a negative migration balance, Prague 
has started to experience a positive migration balance in the last two years, with 

Fig. 5: Population development in Prague and Brno at the district level

PRAGUE
2001-2015

BRNO
2001-2011

0 5 102,5
kmmin = -2.3 (Josefov)

max = 57.4 (Pitkovice)
min = -1.4 (Veveří)
max = 9.6 (Kníničky)

Average annual population change (in %)

-0.5 10 42

Source: Own calculation



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski372

in-migrants more often coming to the inner and outer city neighbourhoods. (ii) In 
the case of foreigners, the migration patterns were much more dynamic and highly 
dependent on the economic situation. Both cities gained foreign population during 
the economic boom in the mid-2000s. This changed after the economic crisis in 
2008. Whilst Prague remained a relatively attractive destination for foreigners, Brno 
appears to have been affected more severely by the economic situation and migra-
tion gains have been only moderate. Given the favourable economic development 
during the past few years, the gradually increasing rate of housing construction and 
many ongoing and upcoming inner-city revitalisation projects, it is expected that 
reurbanisation tendencies will become more evident and dynamic in both cities in 
the near future.

Eastern Germany (Leipzig and Dresden)
In eastern Germany, reurbanisation has to be described against the background 
of long-term shrinking in most of the larger cities. Large university cities such as 
Leipzig and Dresden are the most prominent examples of reurbanisation. Massive 
public and private investment in the built environment and infrastructure created 
the preconditions for new in-migration and growth. 

Leipzig saw a continuous population decline from the 1960s onwards, due to 
both negative natural development and out-migration. Out-migration was frequent-
ly prompted by gradual decay of the industrial base, combined with poor housing 
conditions and ecological degradation (Rink et al. 2012). After 1989, out-migration 
rates skyrocketed. From 1989 to 1998, Leipzig lost about 100,000 inhabitants. This 
dramatic drop in population numbers was reinforced in particular by out-migration 
(to western Germany) that was caused by extensive deindustrialisation. Simulta-
neously, Leipzig saw marked, state subsidised suburbanisation of its surrounding 
areas between 1994 and 1997 (Nuissl/Rink 2005). Out-migration, in total, resulted in 
a dramatic drop of fertility rates (as in the rest of eastern Germany). The impact of 
urban shrinking then became clearly visible in the vast number of brownfi eld sites 
and the large amount of vacant housing (approximately 20 percent of the total stock 
in 2000, Rink et al. 2012). 

Shrinking came to a halt in the late 1990s and migration balances started to turn 
positive again due to modest but continuous in-migration throughout the whole 
decade of the 2000s. This occurred, fi rst, because Leipzig underwent an adminis-
trative reform in 1999 and “regained” some of the suburbanites who had left the 
city years before. Second, since tax policies changed after 1997, suburbanisation 
declined and remained at a very modest level after 2000 (Nuissl/Rink 2005). Third, 
large scale refurbishment in the 1990s and early 2000s drew 80 percent of the in-
migration, which led to strong population growth of these inner-city districts, while 
districts in the outer city continued to lose population (Fig. 6). Most of these in-
migrants were young people aged 30 or less who were attracted by the availability 
of cheap housing (Haase et al. 2010).

Leipzig’s reurbanisation was supported by massive public investment in trans-
port, green and social infrastructures, housing, higher education, and the labour 
market, as well as subsidies for private investment in industries and services. Large-



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 373

scale investment by DHL, BMW and Porsche, which all settled in Leipzig, were 
generously supported by public money; in addition, creative industries began to 
emerge. The city also expanded its role as a higher education hub: a bioscience 
park was established and existing science parks enlarged. 

Reindustrialisation, new economic growth, and the creation of more than 50,000 
new jobs can be viewed as the main causes of regrowth and can be interpreted as 
the outcomes of massive public intervention. Moreover, in the 2010s, after years of 
stagnation and demolition, new (upmarket) housing has been built; currently (2016) 
vacancies have dropped to 5 percent or less, and the housing market has moved 
from a supply-surplus towards a demand-surplus market (Haase/Rink 2015; Wolff 
et al. 2016). Since 2011, Leipzig has attracted more than 10,000 new residents yearly 
due to in-migration. In 2014, for the fi rst time in decades, the city also registered a 
positive birth rate (see appendix). In addition, since 2015, the city has experienced 
an additional infl ux of refugees. Currently, almost all the Leipzig districts are grow-
ing or remain stable (Fig. 6), and the population was roughly 580,000 at the end of 
2016. Leipzig, which was called the “capital of housing vacancy” in the early 2000s, 
is today amongst the fastest growing cities in Germany; the title “city of extremes” 
that was coined by Rink (2015) now seems very apt.

Similar to Leipzig, Dresden experienced rapid changes after reunifi cation in 
terms of its economy and demography but differs from Leipzig in terms of its eco-
nomic stabilisation, the role of the hinterland, and birth rates. Between 1989 and 
1999, the city lost more than 46,000 residents, basically due to out-migration and 
decreasing birth rates. However, 25,000 housing units were refurbished at the same 
time and 38,000 new housing units were built, mostly on the outskirts of the city 
(Wiechmann 2008). Additionally, Dresden saw intense suburbanisation during the 

Fig. 6: Population development in the Leipzig and Dresden districts 2000-2015

DRESDEN
2000-2015

LEIPZIG
2000-2015

0 5 102,5
kmmin = -6.0 (Dresdner Heide)

max = 168.0 (Flughafen/Industriegebiet Klot)
min = -1.7 (Grünau-Nord)
max = 5.1 (Plagwitz)

Average annual population change (in %)

-0.5 10 42

Source: Own calculation



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski374

1990s (see appendix). As described for Leipzig above, the combination of these 
processes led to high housing vacancy rates of more than 20 percent at the end of 
the 1990s (Wiechmann 2008). Economically, after some diffi cult years in the early 
1990s, Dresden regained the specifi c role it played during the GDR era, namely as 
the primary location of the electronic industry, by establishing a highly competitive, 
high-tech industry known as the “Silicon Saxony” microelectronics cluster (Wiech-
mann 2008). This industry, including fi rms such as Infi neon Technologies, together 
with semiconductor and component manufacturers, was supported by state subsi-
dies; more than 760 companies were established in the region, with about 20,000 
employees. 

From 2000 onwards, the city experienced dynamic growth, with more than 
45,000 residents being added to the statistics by 2010. This is rooted in the renewed 
attractiveness of the inner city in terms of housing and public space. In Dresden’s 
early reurbanisation phase, growing and shrinking neighbourhoods had been lo-
cated side by side. In contrast, Figure 6 shows that, by the late 2000s, most of the 
districts experienced strong or even very strong population growth, particularly the 
historic neighbourhoods around the city centre. Only some districts at the fringe 
or with a predominance of prefabricated housing built during the GDR period still 
exhibited population losses. From the mid-2000s onwards, Dresden has benefi ted 
from both immigration and, for the fi rst time since the early 1980s, rising birth rates 
(see appendix). By the late 2000s, Dresden’s housing market came under increasing 
pressure with rising prices for land and rents, shortages in certain housing segments 
and symptoms of gentrifi cation. It is thus not surprising that, in contrast to Leipzig, 
Dresden has a negative migration balance in terms of families who are pushed away 
from or pulled towards the hinterland of the city, which remains attractive.

When comparing the two cities, one can conclude that reurbanisation occurred 
when a) suburbanisation passed its peak and decreased in importance in the late 
1990s and b) the core cities offered old, refurbished housing stock at moderate 
prices and became attractive as housing locations for city-minded (young) people. 
Reurbanisation started in inner-city districts with good infrastructure and valuable 
housing stock and spread gradually over larger areas of the cities. In eastern Ger-
many, reurbanisation was greatly supported and boosted by investment in inner-
city housing stock and infrastructure. Some of these cities, including Dresden, had 
previously already showed signs of a stressed housing market. Leipzig, due to its 
large oversupply of housing, had a supply-surplus housing market until very recent-
ly and is only now slowly returning to a more stressed market. This was one of the 
reasons why in-migration rates in Leipzig rose dramatically after 2011, whereas the 
scale in Dresden remained at the 2006-10 level. In recent years Leipzig has attracted 
more residents from its hinterland than it has lost to it; the trend in Dresden is not 
as obvious due to the continuously negative migration balance for families in the 
hinterland. In both cities, regrowth is also expected to continue within the coming 
years. The potential for in-migration has increased because of more long-distance 
and international in-migration in recent years. However, the availability of both jobs 
and affordable housing will be crucial if reurbanisation is to continue. 



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 375

5 Discussion and conclusion

Coming back to our initial research questions and using them as a guiding principle, 
we summarise the results of our study in the following section and link them to the 
current research knowledge presented in section 2.

How did reurbanisation evolve in the postsocialist contexts of Poland, 
Czech Republic and eastern Germany?

The cross-national view of the city trajectories shows that reurbanisation, under-
stood as population growth after a longer phase of decline, can be found in post-
socialist Europe. However, we observe some important variations in terms of a) 
the speed of the urban dynamics with regard to both previous shrinking and new 
growth, and b) the linear or episodic character of reurbanisation, thereby confi rm-
ing previous studies (Wolff/Wiechmann 2017). As Figure 7 shows, which generalises 
the trajectories of the 10 largest cities between 1970 and 2015, we fi nd fi ve types of 
trajectories, none of which is represented in all three countries. In eastern Germany, 
we see an overwhelming reurbanisation trend, especially in larger cities. In addition, 
the trajectory of stabilisation after extreme shrinking (e.g. Madgeburg, Chemnitz, 
Halle) is quite typical. In contrast, shrinking is still much more widespread in Poland 
and the Czech Republic, even though we also fi nd some evidence for  reurbanisation 
tendencies in these countries (more often in the Czech Republic than in Poland). Fur-
thermore, the three capital cities (Warsaw and Prague on the national level, Dresden 
at the federal state level) represent different types of trajectories. From this, we 
conclude that national and local contexts matter more than any “capital effects”.

Remarkably, we fi nd different city sizes throughout all types. Thus, reurbanisa-
tion does not represent a phenomenon that is primarily typical of second-rank cit-
ies; it also applies for smaller ones (e.g. Jena, Liberec). In addition, there is no clear 
infl uence of a certain city type on an urban trajectory: we fi nd university, service-
oriented, and postindustrial cities throughout all types (reurbanising, stagnating, 
and shrinking).

Whilst reurbanisation has always been the overarching trend of development 
in larger cities in eastern Germany, the developments in Poland and the Czech Re-
public do not show this linearity. There are several reasons behind this differenti-
ated development. First, shrinking has tended to be longer and more pronounced in 
some industrial cities, e.g. Katowice, Łódź, or Ostrava. Second, in contrast to Poland 
and the Czech Republic, considerable public and private investment was targeted 
at cities in eastern Germany. This has led to the creation of new jobs, as well as 
attractive housing and living conditions. Third, people in Germany are less clearly 
oriented towards suburban housing, compared to their Polish and Czech counter-
parts. Germans, however, have a preference for urban neighbourhoods that are 
able to offer acceptable housing and living conditions. Consequently, the intensity 
of suburbanisation is different in the three countries. Whilst this has had a smaller 
effect on the population development of core cities in eastern Germany in the past 
15 years, it still plays an important role in Poland and the Czech Republic. In Poland, 



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski376

residential suburbanisation has contributed to a situation where the economic per-
formance and population development of a city (e.g., Poznań or, to a lesser extent, 
Łódź) seem to be increasingly de-coupled. This is partly due to the relative scarcity 
of housing supply in cities and partly to the fact that most newly built housing can 
be found in the suburbs. We conclude that reurbanisation in eastern Germany has 
been supported by active funding and investment or by pro-active internal policy, 
possibly combined with restrictions on suburban developments (e.g. abolition of 
the state/federal subsidy for builders of private housing in Germany in 2006). 

When looking at the case studies, we found both commonalities and 
differences.

First, there are variations in the profi les of in-migrants. Generally, reurbanisation 
is driven by younger age groups in their early twenties who, however, might leave 
the cities after completing their education. Therefore, career starters and families 
are considered much more signifi cant for (long-term) reurbanisation. However, they 
play a different role in the individual case studies which is due to different housing 
histories, as well as to the availability and affordability of inner-city housing and its 
alternatives (e.g. in the suburbs). Moreover, reurbanisation, measured simply by 

Fig. 7: Typology of population development of the ten largest cities in eastern 
Germany, the Czech Republic, and Poland 1970-2015

Source: Own calculation



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 377

population growth, might be unstable. In the Czech case, the evidence shows that 
reurbanisation (in terms of population) is closely linked to international population 
in- and outfl ows, which, in turn, are dependent on economic developments. In con-
trast, this aspect plays a minor role in Poland. This shows the important role of dif-
ferent types of in- and immigration fl ows for reurbanisation and indicates the need 
for further in-depth research.

Second, national-scale developments are refl ected differently within the cities. In 
all three countries we see inner-city neighbourhoods as starting points for reurbani-
sation. Overall trends of changing housing preferences and rising city-mindedness, 
especially among middle-class urban dwellers, are emerging. In the case of Poland 
and the Czech Republic, this is still not particularly evident in terms of (long-term) 
data, but it is clearly underway in cities in these countries (see also earlier studies 
on transitory urbanites by Haase et al. 2011, 2012; Kährik et al. 2016). 

Generally, there are two factors driving inner-city reurbanisation in eastern Ger-
many and slowing it down or delaying it in Poland and the Czech Republic: different 
tenure structures and different urban/suburban housing history orientations. Reur-
banisation in eastern Germany was fostered by high residential mobility rates, which 
are more likely to be found in a tenants’ market. By contrast, the housing markets 
in Poland and the Czech Republic are shaped by a preference for owner-occupied 
housing. In addition, housing histories in these two countries are more often suburb-
oriented, which is connected to the long-term preference for a family house with a 
garden, the lack of affordable, family-oriented housing in core cities, and the absence 
of effective internal development policies. Another factor that indirectly impacts the 
level of in-migration to cities, at least in the Czech Republic, is the economic situation 
because in-migration is driven to a large extent by (labour) immigration. The effect 
of, e.g., the 2008 crisis was, thus, to interrupt in-migration into large cities. 

Which factors are infl uencing the emergence and development of 
reurbanisation?

Table 1 summarises the factors that we identifi ed as decisive/relevant with respect 
to their infl uence on the emergence and development of reurbanisation in the three 
countries. We identifi ed four main complex factors or bundles of factors that are 
driving the emergence and development of reurbanisation in the three countries 
and that allow conclusions on its duration and persistence. 

1. Population growth and its components: Population growth of the core cities is 
evident in the emergence and development of reurbanisation in all cases, and 
is especially prominent in eastern Germany. Both domestic and international 
migration plays a role, although more prominently in eastern Germany and the 
Czech Republic.3 While in eastern Germany the majority of in-migrants target 
the core city, in Poland and the Czech Republic in-migration is concentrated 

3 In Poland, foreign immigration has only emerged as a factor since 2014, mainly through migra-
tion from (eastern) Ukraine. 



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski378

rather on the suburbs, mainly due to a lack of affordable housing in the core 
city. Within recent years natural growth has become a factor that could have 
a greater impact in the long run; in Poland and the Czech Republic, however, 
much of the natural growth is “moving” with young families to the suburbs.

2. Strategic policy orientations including control of suburbanisation: The case 
of eastern Germany shows that a combination of support for inner-city hous-
ing and delimitation of suburbanisation may foster reurbanisation. The lack 
of consistent policies for the support of cities both at the national and the 
local level in Poland and the Czech Republic is clearly one of the factors hin-
dering core city growth. EU-funding may have different effects here: while 
respective funds were used in East German cities to strengthen urban neigh-
bourhoods, in the other two cases, selective measures aimed at supporting 
suburban housing construction have been fi nanced. In Poland and the Czech 
Republic, there is a connection between ongoing suburbanisation and the 
lack of affordable inner-city housing. 

3. Investment-economy-job nexus: Investment is a factor in all cases but has 
different sources, magnitudes and effects. While in the two East German 
case studies a combination of public and private investment basically into 
infrastructure and service economies led to the creation of new jobs (after 
heavy losses in the 1990s) that allowed in-migrants to stay, the Czech and Pol-
ish cities attract people with their job opportunities; many of those residents, 
however, live in or go to the suburbs. Support schemes also differ – and 
range from large public subsidies and support for the settlement of private 
business in eastern Germany to special economic zones with infrastructure 
and tax relief in Poland and the Czech Republic.

4. Supply of inner-city housing: While investment in inner-city housing in east-
ern Germany led to moderately priced rented housing which meets the needs 
of in-migrants, investment into housing in the other two countries led most-
ly to gentrifi cation and not to a decrease in the lack of affordable housing. 
Therefore, investment in the housing stock combined with a different tenure 
structure has led to quite different outcomes: as a “push factor” in eastern 
Germany, on the one hand, and as a “hindering factor” in the two other exam-
ples, on the other, at least up to the present.

In summary, it is obvious that there is no “postsocialist model” with regard to the 
infl uencing factors of reurbanisation. At the same time, it is apparent that eastern 
Germany, due to its specifi c postsocialist condition and transformation, should be 
viewed as an “outlier” or “hybrid” showing characteristics typical of postsocialist 
and western welfare contexts, plus the specifi cs of extreme shrinking and espe-
cially dynamic reurbanisation. We did not subdivide “amenities” into educational 
and cultural/tourist facilities, open spaces and infrastructures in the table since it 
is almost impossible to single out general aspects of their impact apart from lo-
cal specifi cs. We wish to underline, however, that those amenities also infl uence 
reurbanisation, since they are more (as in the German case) or less (as in the Czech 
Republic and Poland) directly connected with housing and quality of life.



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 379

Tab. 1: Factors infl uencing the emergence and development of reurbanisation 
in the three countries

Factor eastern Germany Poland Czech Republic

Migration reurbanisation almost 
exclusively driven by 
in-migration, until 2010 
largely regionally-
based, since 2010 with 
increasingly national 
and international 
background; in-migration 
has led to rejuvenation; 
reasons are education 
and, after 2010, 
increasingly migration by 
professionals; since 2010 
new suburbanisation as 
a by-product of core city 
growth

out-migration to the 
suburbs remains 
predominant; it is 
accompanied by incipient 
(localised) reurbanisation 
(in terms of in-migration); 
from 2015 onwards, 
international migration 
has emerged as an issue 
in employment statistics 

in-migration during mid-
2000s and mid-2010s 
mostly job-based, partly 
domestic and partly 
international migration; 
suburbanisation remains 
predominant trend 

Natural 
population 
development 

2010s: natural growth 
becomes a factor 
(combination of 
increased birth rates and 
higher likeliness of young 
in-migrants to stay) 

no substantial effect of 
natural growth as families 
continuously move out to 
the suburbs

moderate natural 
growth since the second 
half of 2000s (cohort 
effect); suburbanisation 
“moves” part of this 
growth out of the cities 

Public 
investment

indispensable 
for creation of 
reurbanisation-friendly 
conditions, long-term, 
substantial, including 
direct investment and 
subsidies (e.g. for 
housing, transport and 
infrastructure)

substantial EU-
funded infrastructural 
investment, but favoured 
suburbanisation

no major public 
investment focused 
on core/inner cities; 
subsidies for mortgage 
loans and building 
savings (suburban 
housing)

Private 
investment

important in some 
sectors (e.g. economy, 
housing), often in 
combination with 
public investment 
and subsidies, or for 
exploiting their results/
conditions

new, mostly suburban, 
housing construction, 
some high-profi le 
projects in inner-city 
locations

important; new housing 
construction in all parts 
of the cities and urban 
regions

Jobs and 
economic 
development 
(various 
sectors)

considerable job 
creation in various 
sectors decisive for the 
settlement and retention 
of potential families in 
the city; large-scale 
economic investment 
decisive for job creation 

job opportunities attract 
new residents to the 
urban regions but, due 
to inadequate/expensive 
supply in the core city, 
many go to the suburbs

job opportunities 
decisive for domestic 
and international in-
migration; some new 
in-migrants leave for 
suburbs after starting 
family



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski380

How can the perspective on postsocialist reurbanisation fertilise the 
general debate?

From our study, we conclude that reurbanisation exists as a phenomenon in all 
three countries. However, we have not identifi ed a common postsocialist type of 
reurbanisation and there are considerable differences between cities that can be 
partly explained by national differences. Whilst we see a “city boom” in eastern 
Germany and a general “turn from shrinking towards reurbanisation” of large cities, 
we could not detect similar developmental patterns/processes in Poland and the 
Czech Republic.

Considering the sum of factors infl uencing the development of reurbanisation, 
it seems relatively unlikely that reurbanisation will reach prominent levels in Poland 
and the Czech Republic within the coming years. However, we currently observe 
a “de-coupled” development of economic performance and population develop-
ment: some cities are economically successful and simultaneously continuing to 
lose population (e.g. in the Polish cases). This raises two major questions for further 
research: Is this specifi c to postsocialist cities or can we also detect such a trend 
outside the postsocialist realm? And: Is it appropriate only to use population data 
to detect or explore reurbanisation? Can we rely solely on this indicator or is there a 
need for a more complex, multi-dimensional measure?

When refl ecting on the specifi city of the postsocialist condition, we see that east-
ern Germany plays a special role. The country has been experiencing very strong 
regrowth since 2010, subsequent to a sharper decline than in many western Euro-

Factor eastern Germany Poland Czech Republic

Housing 
market – 
a) supply

b) demand, 
preferences

availability of refurbished 
inner-city housing for 
moderate rents decisive 
for new in-migration; 
tenure (rental) eased 
high residential mobility;

city-based housing 
preferences and 
dominance of rental 
housing support 
reurbanisation: made 
people stay and attracted 
new residents

shortage and costly 
refurbishment of old 
established housing; 
dominance of home 
ownership limits 
residential mobility;

predominant focus on 
meeting needs and 
saving costs; home 
ownership preferred

long-term rent 
regulation (until 2012) 
and home ownership 
limit residential 
mobility; shortage of 
affordable inner-city 
housing; continuity 
of suburban housing 
preference; home 
ownership preference; 
preference change 
towards city-centre

Strategic 
policy 
orientations

local pro-reurbanisation 
policies since early 
2000s, cancellation of 
national subsidies for 
housing suburbanisation 
in 2006

lack of general policy 
orientation towards cities 
on national and local 
level; selective “pro-
suburbani-sation” policies 
such as subsidised 
mortgage loans 

lack of general policy 
orientation towards 
cities; selective “pro-
suburbanisation” 
policies such as 
subsidised mortgage 
loans and buildings 
savings

Source: Own calculation

Tab. 1: Continuation



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 381

pean regions, including western Germany. The decline was inevitably connected 
to the postsocialist condition of eastern Germany. In none of the non-postsocialist 
regions of Europe has there been a break or turn around like the one that occurred 
in 1989/90 in the state socialist countries. At the same time as welfare policies and 
public investment in eastern Germany were supporting reurbanisation, the strong 
orientation towards neoliberalism, privatisation, and a suburb-oriented consump-
tion model (expansion of the mortgage market, the rise in motorisation rates) privi-
leged suburbanisation in Poland and the Czech Republic and slowed down reurbani-
sation tendencies. Whereas most policies supporting suburbanisation were phased 
out by the mid-2000s in eastern Germany, such policies are still being pursued in the 
two other countries. A more neoliberal orientation and withdrawal of the state from 
the support of local development highlights a clear distinction between regions 
in the UK, or even in the US and postsocialist Europe (except eastern Germany). 
Bearing these developments in mind, we argue that eastern Germany represents a 
specifi c (“hybrid”) case of postsocialist development. 

In sum, reurbanisation in our three countries exhibits many underlying factors 
and dynamics that are identical or very similar to those we know from Western 
Europe. Given this context, we conclude that there is no specifi c “postsocialist re-
urbanisation” type. However, the postsocialist history of a country, as an impact 
factor on long-term developments, has to receive more attention within the general 
debate, because it explains certain divergences from western models of the devel-
opments in the three countries as well as differences between the countries. 

Our contribution provided a description, analysis, and synthesis based on na-
tional-scale and case study data. To gain deeper insights, more in-depth research is 
needed which would require at least one additional investigation. Future research 
should, in particular, shed more light on cause-effect relationships between the driv-
ers mentioned and should enhance knowledge on the role of framework develop-
ments and the roles/effects of policies. In addition, it should consider the interplay 
of multiple scales and multi-scalar effects on local developments in greater detail. 
Future research should also take a more systematic view of analogies and differ-
ences between postsocialist cases, e.g. by means of a contrasting comparison. 

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable com-
ments and suggestions, and the editors for their support with the manuscript. Petra 
Špačková thanks for support to the Czech Science Foundation under project no. 16-
20991S and also to Charles University Research Centre program UNCE/HUM/018. 
Manuel Wolff would like to thank the Charles University, Prague, for a research grant 
which enabled him to contribute to this paper.



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski382

References

Beim, Michał; Tölle, Alexander 2008: Segregationsprozesse zwischen Altbauverfall und 
Suburbanisierung. Das Beispiel Posen. [Segregation processes between declining 
older buildings and suburbanisation – case study Posen.] In: disP – The Planning Re-
view 174,44: 51-65 [doi: 10.1080/02513625.2008.10557016].

Beauregard, Robert A. 2009: Urban population loss in historical perspective: United 
States, 1820-2000. In: Environment and Planning A, 41,3: 514-528 [doi: 10.1068/
a40139a].

Berg, Leo van den et al. 1982: Urban Europe. A Study of Growth and Decline. Vol. 1. 
Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Berry, Brian J. L. 1977: Urbanization and Counter Urbanization. London: Sage.

Bradbury, Katharine et al. 1982: Urban Decline and the Future of American Cities. Wash-
ington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Brake, Klaus; Urbanczyk, Rafael 2012: Reurbanisierung – Strukturierung einer begriff-
lichen Vielfalt. In: Brake, Klaus; Herfert, Günter (Eds.): Reurbanisierung. Wiesbaden: 
VS Verlag: 34-51 [doi: 10.1007/978-3-531-94211-7_3].

Brühl, Hasso et al. 2005: Wohnen in der Innenstadt – eine Renaissance? Difu-Berichte 
zur Stadtforschung 41. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik.

Carter, Donald K. 2016 (Ed.): Remaking Post-Industrial Cities. Lessons from North Ameri-
ca and Europe. Routledge. 

Čermák, Zdeněk 2009: Současné tendence vývoje obyvatelstva metropolitních areálů v 
česku: Dochází k významnému obratu? In: Geografi e 114,1: 37-51.

Cheshire, Paul 1995: A new phase of urban development in Western Europe? The evidence 
for the 1980s. In: Urban Studies 32,7: 1045-1063 [doi: 10.1080/00420989550012564].

Cheshire, Paul C. 2006: Resurgent cities, urban myths and policy hubris: what we need 
to know. In: Urban Studies 43,8: 1231-1246 [doi: 10.1080/00420980600775600].

Colomb, Claire 2007: Unpacking New Labour’s ‘urban renaissance’ agenda: towards a 
socially sustainable reurbanisation of British cities? In: Planning, Practice & Research 
22,1: 1-24 [doi: 10.1080/02697450701455249].

Couch, Chris; Fowles, Steven; Karecha, Jay 2009: Reurbanization and housing markets 
in the central and inner urban areas of Liverpool. In: Planning Practice & Research 
24,3: 321-341 [doi: 10.1080/02697450903020767].

Feřtrová, Marie; Temelová, Jana 2011: Prostorová specifi  ka strukturální nezaměstnanosti 
na úrovni obcí v České republice. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review 
47,4: 681-716.

Frantál, Bohumil et al. 2015: Exploring spatial patterns of urban brownfi elds regeneration: 
The case of Brno, Czech Republic. In: Cities 44: 9-18 [doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2014.12.007]. 

Gądecki, Jacek 2013: Odkrywając miasto idealne? Marginalna gentryfi kacja starej 
części dzielnicy Nowa Huta. [Discovering the ideal city. Marginal gentrifi cation in the 
old part of the Nowa Huta district.] In: Studia Regionalne i Lokalne 54,4: 64-81 [doi: 
10.7366/1509499545404]. 

Gerhard, Ulrike 2012: Reurbanisierung – städtische Aufwertungsprozesse in der Glo-
bal-City-Perspektive. In: Brake, Klaus; Herfert, Günter (Eds.): Reurbanisierung. Mate-
rialität und Diskurs in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: Springer: 52-68 [doi: 10.1007/978-3-
531-94211-7_4].



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 383

Górczyńska, Magdalena 2015: Gentryfi kacja w polskim kontekście: krytyczny przegląd 
koncepcji wyjaśniających. [Gentrifi cation in Polish context: a critical overview 
of explanatory concepts.] In: Przegląd Geografi czny 87,4: 589-611 [doi: 10.7163/
PrzG.2015.4.2].

Grabkowska, Maja 2015: Between gentrifi cation and reurbanisation: The participatory 
dimension of bottom-up regeneration in Gdańsk, Poland. In: Geografi e 120,2: 210-225.

Haase, Annegret et al. 2005: Reurbanisation of Inner-City Areas in European Cities. In: 
Sagan, Iwona; Smith, David (Eds.): Society, economy, environment – towards the sus-
tainable city. Gdansk, Poznan: 75-91.

Haase, Annegret et al. 2010: Emergent spaces of reurbanisation: exploring the demo-
graphic dimension of inner-city residential change in a European setting. In: Popula-
tion, Space and Place 16,5: 443-463 [doi: 10.1002/psp.603].

Haase, Annegret et al. (Eds.) 2011: Residential change and demographic challenge. The 
inner city of East Central Europe in the 21st century. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate. 

Haase, Annegret et al. 2012: Reurbanizing Leipzig (Germany): Context Conditions and 
Residential Actors (2000-2007). In: European Planning Studies 20,7: 1173-1196 [doi: 
10.1080/09654313.2012.674349].

Haase, Annegret et al. 2014: Conceptualizing Urban Shrinkage. In: Environment and 
Planning A: Economy and Space 46,7: 1519-1534 [doi: 10.1068/a46269].

Haase, Annegret; Rink, Dieter 2015: Inner-city transformation between reurbanization 
and gentrifi cation: Leipzig, eastern Germany. In: Geografi e 120,2: 226-250.

Hall, Peter; Hay, Dennis 1980: Growth Centres in the European Urban System. Heine-
mann Educational, London.

Halleux, Jean-Marie; Marcinczak, Szymon; van der Krabben, Erwin 2012: The adaptive 
effi ciency of land use planning measured by the control of urban sprawl. The cases of 
the Netherlands, Belgium and Poland. In: Land Use Policy 29,4: 887-898 [doi: 10.1016/j.
landusepol.2012.01.008].

Hampl, Martin; Kühnl, Karel 1993: Migratory trends in former Czechoslovakia. Acta Uni-
versitatis Carolinae. In: Geographica 28,1: 53-71. 

Helbrecht, Ilse 1996: Die Wiederkehr der Innenstädte. Zur Rolle von Kultur, Kapital und 
Konsum im Prozess der Gentrifi cation. In: Geographische Zeitschrift 84,1: 1-15.

Herfert, Günter 2007: Regionale Polarisierung der demographischen Entwicklung in 
Ostdeutschland – Gleichwertigkeit der Lebensverhältnisse? In: Raumforschung und 
Raumordnung 65,5: 435-455 [doi: 10.1007/BF03183833].

Holm, Andrej 2012: Paradoxien und Begleiterscheinungen der Reurbaniserung. In: Bra-
ke, Klaus; Herfert, Günter (Eds.): Reurbanisierung. Materialität und Diskurs in Deutsch-
land. Wiesbaden: Springer: 239-256 [doi: 10.1007/978-3-531-94211-7_14].

Ilík, Jan; Ouředníček, Martin 2007: Karlín a jeho proměny v souvislostech postsocialis-
tické transformace Prahy. In: Geografi e 112,3: 292-314. 

Kabisch, Nadja; Haase, Dagmar; Haase, Annegret 2010: Evolving reurbanisation? Spa-
tio-temporal dynamics as exemplifi ed by the east German city of Leipzig. In: Urban 
Studies 47,5: 967-990 [doi: 10.1177/0042098009353072].

Kabisch, Nadja; Haase, Dagmar 2011: Diversifying European agglomerations: evidence 
of urban population trends for the 21st century. In: Population, Space and Place 17,3, 
236-253 [doi: 10.1002/psp.600].



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski384

Kabisch, Nadja; Haase, Dagmar; Haase, Annegret 2012: Urban Population Development 
in Europe, 1991-2008: The Examples of Poland and the UK. In: International Journal of 
Urban and Regional Research 36,6: 1326-1348 [doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01114.x].

Kährik, Anneli et al. 2016: What attracts people to inner city areas? The cases of two 
post-socialist cities in Estonia and the Czech Republic. In: Urban Studies 53,2: 355-372 
[doi: 10.1177/0042098014567444]. 

Kajdanek, Katarzyna 2012: Suburbanizacja po polsku. [Polish-style suburbanization]. 
Cracow: Nomos.

Karsten, Lia 2014: From Yuppies to Yupps: Family Gentrifi ers Consuming Spaces and 
Re-inventing Cities. In: Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografi e 105,2: 175-
188 [doi: 10.1111/tesg.12055].

Klaassen, Leo; Scimeni, Gabriel 1981: Theoretical issues in urban dynamics. In: Klaas-
sen, Leo et al. (Eds.): Dynamics of Urban Development. Aldershot: Gower: 8-28.

Klusáček, Petr; Vaishar, Antonín 2008: Současné urbanizační pochody a obytné prostředí 
jako součást kvality života ve vnitřních částech evropských velkoměst. In: Geographia 
Slovaca 25: 145-157.

Klusáček, Petr et al. 2009: Urban Development In Selected Czech And Austrian City Re-
gions. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. In: Geographica 40,2: 27-57.

Krejčí, Tomáš et al. 2011: Spatial differentiation of selected processes connected to the 
second demographic transition in post-socialistic cities (the examples of Brno and 
Ostrava, Czech Republic). In: Moravian Geographical Reports 19,2: 39-50.

Kubeš, Jan 2009: Poloha, struktura, infrastruktura a obraz Českých Budějovic a 
Českobudějovické aglomerace. In: Kubeš, Jan et al. (Eds.): Urbánní geografi e Českých 
Budějovic a Českobudějovické aglomerace I., Ústav vedy a výskumu Univerzity Mateja 
Bela v Banskej Bystrici: 51-105.

Kubeš, Jan 2015: Analysis of regulation of residential suburbanisation in hinterland of 
post-socialist “one hundred thousands” city of České Budějovice. In: Bulletin of Geo-
graphy, Socio-Economic Series 27,27: 109-131 [doi: 10.1515/bog-2015-0008]. 

Kujath, Hans Joachim 1988: Reurbanisierung? – Zur Organisation von Wohnen und Le-
ben am Ende des städtischen Wachstums. In: Leviathan 16,1: 23-43.

Kujath, Hans-Joachim 2012: Reurbanisierung des Wissens – zur Herausbildung von 
Metropolregionen unter dem Einfl uss der Wissensökonomie. In: Brake, Klaus; Herfert, 
Günter (Eds.): Reurbanisierung. Materialität und Diskurs in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: 
Springer: 216-238 [doi: 10.1007/978-3-531-94211-7_13].

Kunc, Josef et al. 2014: Perception of urban renewal: Refl exions and coherences of so-
cio-spatial patterns (Brno, Czech Republic). In: Geographia Technica 9,1: 66-77.

Książek, Słavomir; Suszczewicz, Michał 2017: City profi le: Wrocła. In: Cities 65, 51-65 
[doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2017.03.001].

Lever, Walter Frederick 1993: Reurbanisation – the policy implications. In: Urban Studies 
30,2: 267-284 [doi: 10.1080/00420989320080281].

Lorens, Piotr (Ed.) 2007: Rewitalizacja miast w Polsce. Pierwsze doświadczenia. [Urban 
regeneration in Poland. First experiences.] Warszawa: Urbanista.

Marcińczak, Szymon; Sagan, Iwona 2011: The socio-spatial restructuring of Łódź, Po-
land. Urban Studies 48,9: 1789-1809 [doi: 10.1177/0042098010379276].

Marcińczak, Szymon; Gentile, Michael; Stepniak, Marcin 2013: Paradoxes of (Post)So-
cialist Segregation: Metropolitan Sociospatial Divisions under Socialism and after in 
Poland. In: Urban Studies 34,3: 327-352 [doi: 10.1080/02723638.2013.778667].



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 385

Metropolitní Plán 2016: Prague Institute of Planning and Development [http://plan.
iprpraha.cz/cs/metropolitni-plan, 23.03.2018].

Murzyn-Kupisz, Monika; Szmytkowska, Magdalena 2015: Studentifi cation in the postso-
cialist context: The case of Cracow and the Tri-City (Gdansk, Gdynia and Sopot). In: 
Geografi e 120,2: 188-209.

Musil, Jiri 1977: Urbanizace v socialistických zemích. Praha: Svoboda. 

Myers, Dowell 1990: Housing Demography. Linking Demographic Structure and Hous-
ing Markets. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Mulder, Clara H.; Dieleman, Frans M. 2002: Living arrangements and housing arrange-
ments: Introduction to the special issue. In: Journal of Housing and the Built Environ-
ment 17,3: 209-213 [doi: 10.1023/A:1020202702602].

Nuissl, Henning; Rink, Dieter 2005: The ‘production’ of urban sprawl in eastern Ger-
many as a phenomenon of post-socialist transformation. In: Cities 22,2: 123-134 [doi: 
10.1016/j.cities.2005.01.002].

Nyström, Jan 1992: The Cyclical Urbanization Model. A critical Analysis. Geografi ska 
Annaler B 74,2: 133-144 [doi: 10.1080/04353684.1992.11879637].

Ouředníček, Martin et al. 2015: The reurbanisation concept and its utility for contem-
porary research on post-socialist cities: The case of the Czech Republic. In: Moravian 
Geographical Reports 23,4: 26-35 [doi: 10.1515/mgr-2015-0022]. 

Parysek, Jerzy; Mierzejewska, Lidia 2005: Między dezurbanizacją a reurbanizacją: nowe 
oblicze urbanizacji w Polsce [Between disurbanization and reurbanisation: new face 
of urbanization in Poland]. In: Jażdżewska, Iwona (Ed.): XVIII Konwersatorium Wiedzy 
o Mieście, Współczesne procesy urbanizacji i ich skutki. Łódź: Uniwersytet Łódzki: 
47-56.

Power, Anne et al. 2010: Phoenix cities: The fall and rise of great industrial cities. Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.

Pumain, Denise 2006: Alternative explanations of hierarchical differentiation in urban 
systems. In: Pumain, Denise (Ed.): Hierarchy in natural and social sciences. Springer: 
169-222 [doi: 10.1007/1-4020-4127-6].

Radzimski, Adam 2011: Rola planowania miejskiego na przykładzie budownictwa miesz-
kaniowego w Poznaniu [The role of urban planning on the example of residential con-
struction in Poznań). In: Studia KPZK 134: 178-203.

Radzimski, Adam 2014: Subsidized mortgage loans and housing affordability in Poland. 
In: GeoJournal 79,4: 467-494 [doi: 10.1007/s10708-014-9533-2].

Radzimski, Adam 2015: Między miastem kurczącym się a reurbanizacją. Zróżnicowanie 
rozwoju miast w Niemczech w latach 1995-2012. [Between the shrinking city and reur-
banisation. Differentiation of urban development in Germany in the years 1995-2012.] 
In: Przegląd Geografi czny 87,4: 659-682 [doi: 10.7163/PrzG.2015.4.5].

Rink, Dieter et al. 2012: From Long-Term Shrinkage to Re-Growth? The Urban Develop-
ment Trajectories of Liverpool and Leipzig. In: Built Environment 38,2: 162-178 [doi: 
10.2148/benv.38.2.162].

Rink, Dieter 2015: Leipzig – Stadt der Extreme. In: Leipziger Blätter ‒ Sonderheft 1000 
Jahre Leipzig: 4-7.

Rumpel, Petr; Slach, Ondrej 2012: Je Ostrava „smršťujícím se městem“? In: Sociolo-
gický Časopis/Czech Sociological Review 48,5: 859-878.



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski386

Seidenglanz, Daniel; Toušek, Václav; Chvátal, Filip 2013: Odborná analýza vývoje počtu 
osob ofi ciálně neregistrovaných ve městě brně, 2013. Kvalifi kovaný odhad vývoje 
celkového počtu obyvatel Brna do roku 2025. Masarykova univerzita, Přírodovědecká 
fakulta, Geografi cký ústav, Centrum pro regionální rozvoj, Brno.

Šimon, Martin 2014: Exploring counterurbanisation in a post-socialist context: Case 
of the Czech Republic. In: Sociologia Ruralis 54,2: 117-142 [doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9523.2012.00576.x]. 

Špačková, Petra; Ouředníček, Martin 2012: Spinning the web: New social contacts of 
Prague’s suburbanites. In: Cities 29,5: 341-349 [doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2011.09.002].

Špačková, Petra; Pospíšilová, Lucie; Ouředníček Martin 2016a: Long-term Development 
of Socio-spatial Differentiation in Socialist and Post-socialist Prague. In: Sociologický 
časopis 52,6: 821-860 [doi: 10.13060/00380288.2016.52.6.288].

Špačková, Petra; Dvořáková, Nina; Tobrmanová, Martina 2016b: Residential satisfaction 
and intention to move: the case of Prague’s new suburbanites. In: Geografi ska An-
naler B98,4: 331-348 Pages 331-348.

Sojkin, Bogdan; Bartkowiak, Pawel; Skuza, Agnieszka 2012: Determinants of higher edu-
cation choices and student satisfaction: The case of Poland. In: Higher Education 63,5: 
565-581 [doi: 10.1007/s10734-011-9459-2].

Steinführer, Annett 2006: The Urban Transition Of Inner City Areas Reconsidered (A 
German-Czech Comparison). In: Moravian Geographical Reports 14,1: 3-16.

Steinführer, Annett et al. 2010: Population Decline in Polish and Czech Cities during 
Post-socialism? Looking Behind the Offi cial Statistics. In: Urban Studies 47,11: 2325-
2346 [doi: 10.1177/0042098009360224]. 

Storper, Michael; Manville, Michael 2006: Behaviour, preferences and cities: ur-
ban theory and urban resurgence. In: Urban Studies 43,8: 1247-1274 [doi: 
10.1080/00420980600775642].

Sýkora, Luděk 2006: Urban development, policy and planning in the Czech republic and 
Prague. In: Altrock, Uwe et al. (Eds): Spatial Planning and Urban Development in the 
New EU Member States: From Adjustment to Reinvention. Farnham: Ashgate Publish-
ing: 113-140.

Sýkora, Luděk; Posová, Darina 2011: Formy urbanizace: Kritické zhodnocení modelu sta-
dií vývoje měst a návrh alternativní metody klasifi kace forem urbanizace. In: Geografi e 
116,1: 1-22.

Sýkora, Luděk; Mulíček, Ondřej 2014: Prague: Urban Growth and Regional Sprawl. In: 
Stanilov, Kiril; Sýkora, Luděk (Eds.): Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentraliza-
tion in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell: 133-162 
[doi: 10.1002/9781118295861.ch5].

Temelová, Jana 2007: Flagship developments and the physical upgrading of the post-so-
cialist inner city: The Golden Angel project in Prague. In: Geografi ska Annaler 89B,2: 
169-181 [doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00246.x]. 

Turok, Ivan; Mykhnenko, Vlad 2007: The trajectories of European cities, 1960-2005. In: 
Cities 24,3: 165-182 [doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2007.01.007].

Wiechmann, Thorsten 2008: Errors expected – aligning urban strategy with demogra-
phic uncertainty in shrinking cities. In: International Planning Studies 13,4: 431-446 
[doi: 10.1080/13563470802519097].

Wolff, Manuel et al. 2016: The impact of urban regrowth on the built environment. In: 
Urban Studies 54,12: 2683-2700 [doi: 10.1177/0042098016658231].



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 387

Wolff, Manuel; Wiechmann, Thorsten 2017: Urban growth and decline: Europe’s shrink-
ing cities in a comparative perspective 1990-2010. In: European Urban and Regional 
Studies [doi: 10.1177/0969776417694680].

Ziobrowski, Zygmunt; Jarczewski, Wojciech 2010: Rewitalizacja miast polskich: diag-
noza. Cracow: Institute of Urban Development.

Date of submission: 24.03.2017  Date of acceptance: 23.01.2018

Dr. Annegret Haase (). Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, 
Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology. Leipzig, Germany. 
E-mail: annegret.haase@ufz.de
URL: http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=1650

Manuel Wolff. Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Department of Geography/Lab of 
Landscape Ecology. Berlin, Germany. E-mail: manuel.wolff@hu-berlin.de
URL: http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=38796
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Urban and 
Environmental Sociology. Leipzig, Germany. E-mail: manuel.wolff@ufz.de
URL: http://www.geographie.hu-berlin.de/Members/Wolff_Manuel

Dr. Petra Špačková. Charles University, Faculty of Science, Department of Social 
Geography and Regional Development. Prague, Czech Republic.
E-mail: petra.spackova@natur.cuni.cz
URL: http://urrlab.cz/en/profi le/petra-spackova

Dr. Adam Radzimski. Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Faculty of Geographical and 
Geological Sciences, Institute of Socio-Economic Geography and Spatial Management. 
Poznań, Poland. E-mail: adam.radzimski@amu.edu.pl
URL: http://igsegp.amu.edu.pl/pracownicy/dr-adam-radzimski-adiunkt/



•    Annegret Haase, Manuel Wolff, Petra Špačková, Adam Radzimski388
A

p
p

e
n

d
ix

: 
B

a
si

c 
fi 

g
u

re
s 

fo
r 

p
o

p
u

la
ti

o
n

 d
e
v
e

lo
p

m
e

n
t 

o
f 

ci
ti

e
s 

a
n

d
 s

u
b

u
rb

a
n

 a
re

a
s 

b
y
 c

o
m

p
o

n
e

n
ts

 a
n

d
 

d
if

fe
re

n
t 

p
e

ri
o

d
s

C
o

re
 c

it
ie

s
S

u
b

u
rb

a
n

 a
re

a
s

T
y

p
e

/C
it

y
19

9
0

-1
9

9
5

19
9

5
-1

9
9

8
/0

0
2

0
0

0
-2

0
0

5
2

0
0

5
-2

0
0

9
/1

0
2

0
1
0

/1
1
-2

0
15

19
9

0
-1

9
9

8
/0

0
2

0
0

0
-2

0
0

9
/1

0
2

0
1
0

/1
1
-2

0
15

p
c

n
c/

m
c

p
c

n
c/

m
c

p
c

n
c/

m
c

p
c

n
c/

m
c

p
c

n
c/

m
c

p
c

R
e

g
ro

w
th

D
re

sd
e

n
-0

,4
2

- 
/ 

-
-0

,5
6

- 
/ 

-
0

,8
6

- 
/ 

+
1,

13
+

 /
 +

+
1,

2
6

+
 /

 +
+

0
,1

5
-0

,5
0

0
,0

5
E

rf
u

rt
-0

,8
4

- 
/ 

+
-0

,8
7

- 
/ 

-
0

,3
4

- 
/ 

+
0

,2
1

- 
/ 

+
1,

0
1

- 
/ 

+
+

2
,0

4
-0

,8
4

-0
,0

9
J
e

n
a

-0
,5

8
- 

/ 
-

0
,0

2
- 

/ 
-

0
,3

4
- 

/ 
+

0
,5

1
+

 /
 +

0
,7

3
+

 /
 +

0
,5

1
-0

,5
7

-0
,1

3
L

e
ip

zi
g

-1
,0

6
- 

/ 
-

-0
,8

5
- 

/ 
-

0
,4

9
- 

/ 
+

0
,8

1
- 

/ 
+

2
,4

7
+

 /
 +

+
1,

2
9

-0
,4

7
0

,0
5

L
ib

e
re

c
-0

,0
2

- 
/ 

+
-0

,3
7

- 
/ 

-
-0

,1
1

- 
/ 

-
0

,6
9

+
 /

 +
0

,2
5

+
 /

 +
0

,2
8

0
,5

4
0

,6
8

P
lz

e
ň

-0
,1

7
- 

/ 
+

-0
,6

6
- 

/ 
-

-0
,3

7
- 

/ 
-

0
,4

7
+

 /
 +

0
,3

1
- 

/ 
+

0
,0

4
1,

0
1

0
,3

9
P

ra
h

a
-0

,1
5

- 
/ 

+
-0

,6
8

- 
/ 

-
0

,4
6

- 
/ 

+
0

,8
5

+
 /

 +
+

0
,4

2
+

 /
 +

0
,6

7
5

,3
4

1,
18

R
o

st
o

ck
-1

,6
6

- 
/ 

--
-2

,0
9

- 
/ 

--
0
,0

4
- 

/ 
+

0
,3

5
- 

/ 
+

0
,5

2
- 

/ 
+

3
,6

6
0

,0
8

0
,1

3

R
e

g
ro

w
th

/S
ta

b
le

B
rn

o
0

,0
3

- 
/ 

+
-0

,6
7

- 
/ 

-
-0

,4
4

- 
/ 

-
0

,5
5

+
 /

 +
-0

,1
0

+
 /

 -
0

,1
4

1,
3

5
0

,8
7

G
d

a
ńs

k
-0

,1
9

+
 /

 +
-0

,0
4

- 
/ 

-
-0

,2
1

- 
/ 

-
0

,0
9

+
 /

 -
0

,0
9

- 
/ 

+
1,

0
8

1,
8
1

1,
5

7
P

a
rd

u
b

ic
e

-0
,3

3
- 

/ 
+

-0
,5

9
- 

/ 
-

-0
,5

2
- 

/ 
-

0
,2

0
+

 /
 +

0
,0

2
- 

/ 
+

0
,2

4
1,

13
0

,6
5

Ú
st

í n
a
d

 L
a
b

e
m

0
,3

9
+

 /
 -

-0
,4

1
- 

/ 
-

-0
,4

6
+

 /
 -

-0
,1

4
+

 /
 +

0
,1

3
+

 /
 -

0
,0

3
0

,1
5

0
,5

7
W

ro
c
ła

w
-0

,0
6

- 
/ 

+
-0

,0
3

- 
/ 

+
-0

,1
9

- 
/ 

+
-0

,1
2

+
 /

 +
0

,1
8

- 
/ 

+
0

,3
4

1,
5

0
1,

5
2

S
ta

b
le

 a
ft

e
r 

st
ro

n
g

 d
e

cl
in

e
C

h
e

m
n

it
z

-1
,2

9
- 

/ 
--

-1
,8

8
- 

/ 
--

-0
,9

0
- 

/ 
-

-0
,2

7
- 

/ 
+

0
,8

7
- 

/ 
+

+
0

,0
5

-0
,9

2
-0

,2
5

H
a
lle

-1
,3

4
- 

/ 
--

-2
,3

4
- 

/ 
--

-0
,6

0
- 

/ 
-

-0
,3

6
- 

/ 
-

0
,7

0
- 

/ 
+

2
,5

9
-0

,7
9

-0
,2

2
M

a
g

d
e

b
u

rg
-1

,3
2

- 
/ 

--
-1

,8
6

- 
/ 

--
-0

,0
7

- 
/ 

+
0

,2
1

- 
/ 

+
0

,7
4

- 
/ 

+
1,

0
3

-0
,8

5
-0

,1
5

E
p

is
o

d
ic

 g
ro

w
th

B
e

rl
in

0
,1

5
- 

/ 
+

-0
,4

0
- 

/ 
-

0
,0

5
- 

/ 
+

0
,3

9
- 

/ 
+

1,
7

3
+

 /
 +

+
2

,7
3

1,
2

4
0

,2
9

K
ra

kó
w

-0
,2

1
- 

/ 
+

0
,2

9
- 

/ 
+

-0
,0

4
- 

/ 
+

0
,0

6
+

 /
 +

0
,0

6
+

 /
 +

0
,4

7
0

,9
2

0
,9

1
P

o
ts

d
a
m

-0
,3

2
- 

/ 
-

-0
,2

6
- 

/ 
-

1,
0

0
+

 /
 +

1,
2

6
+

 /
 +

1,
6
1

+
 /

 +
+

2
,8

6
0

,5
0

0
,2

9
W

a
rs

za
w

a
-0

,2
9

- 
/ 

+
0

,3
7

- 
/ 

+
0

,0
8

- 
/ 

+
0

,0
8

- 
/ 

+
0

,5
1

+
 /

 +
0

,9
0

1,
3

9
1,

14



Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe    • 389

A
p

p
e

n
d

ix
: 

C
o

n
ti

n
u

a
ti

o
n

p
c 

=
 P

o
p

u
la

ti
o

n
 c

h
an

g
e
 =

 a
v
e
ra

g
e
 a

n
n

u
al

 p
o

p
u

la
ti

o
n

 c
h

an
g

e
 in

 %
n

c 
=

 N
at

u
ra

l c
h

an
g

e
 =

 p
o

si
ti

v
e
 (

+
)/

n
e
g

at
iv

e
 (

-)
 b

al
an

ce
 b

y
 n

at
u

ra
l c

h
an

g
e
, 
v
e
ry

 p
o

si
ti

v
e
 (

+
+

)/
n

e
g

at
iv

e
(-

-)
 w

it
h

 b
al

an
ce

 e
x
ce

e
d

in
g

 5
0
 

p
e
rs

o
n

s 
p

e
r 

1
,0

0
0
 in

h
ab

it
an

ts
m

c 
=

 M
ig

ra
ti

o
n

 c
h

an
g

e
 =

 p
o

si
ti

v
e
 (

+
)/

n
e
g

at
iv

e
 (

-)
 b

al
an

ce
 b

y
 m

ig
ra

ti
o

n
 c

h
an

g
e
, v

e
ry

 p
o

si
ti

v
e
 (

+
+

)/
n

e
g

at
iv

e
(-

-)
 w

it
h

 b
al

an
ce

 e
x
ce

e
d

-
in

g
 5

0
 p

e
rs

o
n

s 
p

e
r 

1
,0

0
0
 in

h
ab

it
an

ts

S
o

u
rc

e
: 

O
w

n
 c

al
cu

la
ti

o
n

C
o

re
 c

it
ie

s
S

u
b

u
rb

a
n

 a
re

a
s

T
y

p
e

/C
it

y
19

9
0

-1
9

9
5

19
9

5
-1

9
9

8
/0

0
2

0
0

0
-2

0
0

5
2

0
0

5
-2

0
0

9
/1

0
2

0
1
0

/1
1
-2

0
15

19
9

0
-1

9
9

8
/0

0
2

0
0

0
-2

0
0

9
/1

0
2

0
1
0

/1
1
-2

0
15

p
c

n
c/

m
c

p
c

n
c/

m
c

p
c

n
c/

m
c

p
c

n
c/

m
c

p
c

n
c/

m
c

p
c

E
p

is
o

d
ic

 d
e

cl
in

e
B

y
d

g
o

sz
c
z

0
,1

6
+

 /
 +

-0
,5

1
- 

/ 
+

-0
,5

5
- 

/ 
-

-0
,1

4
- 

/ 
-

-0
,5

1
- 

/ 
-

0
,7

9
2

,2
6

1,
3

3
Č

e
sk

é
 B

u
d
ěj

o
v

ic
e

0
,3

6
+

 /
 +

-0
,5

0
- 

/ 
-

-0
,5

4
- 

/ 
-

-0
,1

8
+

 /
 -

-0
,0

2
+

 /
 -

0
,6

1
1,

4
3

0
,9

9
H

ra
d

e
c 

K
rá

lo
v
é

0
,0

8
+

 /
 +

-0
,6

8
- 

/ 
-

-0
,5

1
- 

/ 
-

-0
,1

7
+

 /
 -

-0
,0

5
- 

/ 
-

-0
,0

9
0

,0
9

0
,0

6
K

a
to

w
ic

e
-1

,0
5

- 
/ 

-
-1

,1
1

- 
/ 

-
-0

,8
3

- 
/ 

-
-0

,4
2

- 
/ 

-
-0

,7
6

- 
/ 

-
-0

,1
7

0
,1

5
0

,1
0

Ł
ó

d
ź

-0
,6

4
- 

/ 
+

-0
,6

4
- 

/ 
-

-0
,7

6
- 

/ 
-

-0
,9

2
- 

/ 
-

-0
,8

3
- 

/ 
-

0
,0

0
0

,2
6

0
,1

4
L
u

b
lin

0
,1

5
+

 /
 +

0
,1

2
+

 /
 +

-0
,1

5
+

 /
 -

-0
,3

0
+

 /
 -

-0
,5

6
+

 /
 -

0
,0

3
0

,5
6

0
,3

5
O

lo
m

o
u

c
-0

,2
0

- 
/ 

+
-0

,3
9

- 
/ 

-
-0

,1
5

- 
/ 

-
-0

,0
1

+
 /

 -
-0

,2
9

+
 /

 -
0

,1
0

0
,2

2
0

,6
5

O
st

ra
v
a

-0
,2

0
+

 /
 -

-0
,4

8
- 

/ 
-

-0
,4

3
- 

/ 
-

-0
,5

6
+

 /
 -

-0
,4

6
- 

/ 
-

-0
,1

0
-0

,4
5

0
,1

8
P

o
zn

a
ń

-0
,3

6
- 

/ 
+

-0
,0

5
- 

/ 
+

-0
,5

0
- 

/ 
-

-0
,4

2
+

 /
 -

-0
,5

1
+

 /
 -

1,
5

5
2

,6
8

2
,1

7
S

zc
ze

ci
n

0
,2

4
+

 /
 +

-0
,1

0
- 

/ 
+

-0
,2

8
- 

/ 
-

-0
,0

6
- 

/ 
-

-0
,2

4
- 

/ 
+

0
,3

8
0

,5
5

0
,1

9



Published by
Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider

Federal Institute for Population Research 
D-65180 Wiesbaden / Germany

 2017 

Managing Editor 
Frank Swiaczny

Assistant Managing Editor
Katrin Schiefer

Copy Editor 
(Selected Articles in German) 
Dr. Evelyn Grünheid

Layout
Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs

E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de

Scientifi c Advisory Board
Paul Gans (Mannheim) 
Karsten Hank (Cologne)
Johannes Huinink (Bremen) 
Michaela Kreyenfeld (Rostock)
Marc Luy (Vienna) 
Notburga Ott (Bochum) 
Peter Preisendörfer (Mainz)
Nikola Sander (Groningen)
Zsolt Spéder (Budapest)

Comparative Population Studies

www.comparativepopulationstudies.de

ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet)

Board of Reviewers
Martin Abraham (Erlangen)
Laura Bernardi (Lausanne)
Hansjörg Bucher (Bonn)
Claudia Diehl (Konstanz)
Andreas Diekmann (Zurich)
Gabriele Doblhammer-Reiter (Rostock)
Jürgen Dorbritz (Wiesbaden)
Anette Eva Fasang (Berlin)
E.-Jürgen Flöthmann (Bielefeld)
Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Vienna)
Beat Fux (Salzburg)
Joshua Goldstein (Berkeley)
Sonja Haug (Regensburg)
Hill Kulu (Liverpool)
Aart C. Liefbroer (The Hague)
Kurt Lüscher (Konstanz)
Emma Lundholm (Umeå)
Nadja Milewski (Rostock)
Dimiter Philipov (Vienna)
Roland Rau (Rostock)
Tomáš Sobotka (Vienna)
Jeroen Spijker (Barcelona)
Olivier Thévenon (Paris)
Helga de Valk (Brussels)
Heike Trappe (Rostock)
Michael Wagner (Cologne)