Housing Preferences and the Image of Inner City Neighbourhoods in Budapest 201 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 2009. Vol. 58. No 3. pp. 201–214. Housing preferences and the image of inner city neighbourhoods in Budapest Eszter Berényi B.1–Balázs Szabó2 Abstract The study presents an analysis of inner-city neighbourhoods of Budapest. The major fi nd- ings are as follows: (1) The real estate prices increased in all parts of the inner-city in the last decade but the rate of change was varied. The most deteriorated quarters rapidly developed because of the reconstructions and the new constructions, however the highest prices are still recorded in the traditionally most prestigious neighbourhoods. (2) The social structure of the inner city signifi cantly changed. The new inhabitants – who moved to the inner city aft er 2000 – are younger, more educated than the traditional inhabitants who did not leave the inner-city aft er 1990. The reasons for moving into the inner-city are diff erent in the two groups. The location became the most important factor, and some special quarter related reasons emerged (good reputation). (3) The inhabitant’s views about the inner-city also transformed, mainly because the housing preferences of the old and new inhabitants are diff erent. The older inhabitants have a more critical att itude toward the inner-city than the new ones. The family house in the suburban greenbelt is their most preferred housing type. The satisfaction with the neighbourhoods depends on mostly the condition of build- ings and the new functions of the quarters. The emergence of diff erent social groups in the neighbourhood is already perceived by the local population. Keywords: Budapest, inner-city, image of the city, housing preference, urban regeneration. Introduction The aim of this paper is to examine how the transformation of the inner city is seen by members of local society. Our hypothesis is that population change has strengthened in all areas though only a small part of the inner city has experienced renewed during the last years. There have appeared certain social groups which obviously prefer to live downtown, namely students (about 100,000 students are enrolled in the universities and colleges of the capital) and foreigners who study or work in Budapest for a few years. The preferences of the newcomers are diff erent from those of the traditional local population. The central location is supposedly favoured by both. The traditional dwellers 1 Development Council of Budapest Agglomeration. H-1184 Budapest, Üllői út 400. E-mail: berenyibeszter@gmail.com 2 Geographical Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. H-1112 Budapest, Budaörsi út 45. E-mail: szbazs@gmail.com 202 (mainly the older ones) emotionally connect to the quarter where they know their neigh- bours and the local shops, while the newcomers move in to be close to the universities or work places and bars, cafes, restaurants, and cultural institutions. Though the transformation of the inner city is a visible process, its mental percep- tion might be quite varied. There could be signifi cant diff erences between the opinion of the traditional and the new inhabitants. This latt er group may claim the inner city more preferable than the traditional dwellers. The analysis of inner city transformation is based on two diff erent sets of informa- tion. One is a series of offi cial statistical data3, the other is a sample survey4 carried out in 2007. The fi rst part of our paper gives a short overview of the changes in inner city neigh- bourhoods (and especially in our case study areas) as refl ected in the statistical data. The second part of the paper will focus on the inhabitants’ opinion and preferences revealed by the results of the sample survey. Inner city transformation in the capital of a transition country Briefl y, Budapest can be divided into the following principal zones. In the centre of the town can be found the city (central business district) where offi ces and administrative and cultural institutions are concentrated. The inner resi- dential area – surrounded the city – where 25% of the population of the capital live is the eldest part of Budapest. It was rebuilt aft er the fl ood of Danube in 1838, but the recent building stock originates from the period between the uni- fi cation of Pest, Buda and Óbuda in 1873 and World War II. This densely built historical city center is surrounded by public parks, stations and industrial areas in Pest side, and by villa quarters in the Buda side. The industrial zone is mixed with old deteriorated residential areas and some socialist housing estates. The outer districts – the sett lements which att ached to the capital in 1950 – contain large housing estates and continuously built family houses. The inner city of Budapest has been greatly transformed during the last twenty years. The most spectacular changes have been the emerging ur- ban functions. The number and variability of shops, services, and offi ces in- creased while the building stock more or less remained the same. In the early nineties, the housing market was mainly driven by functional conversion of the fl ats in the inner parts of the city (Kovács, Z.–Wiessner, R. 1996). Some new houses were already built in the nineties but the majority of construc- tion projects started aft er 2000, partly as a result of the new housing policy (Hegedüs, J.–Teller, N. 2006). At the end of the 1990s, the housing market 3 These data are produced by the Central Statistical Offi ce. Their major sources are regular surveys (housing statistics, population census) and offi cially registered price information in the real estate business. 4 The survey is a part of a DFG project: Between Gentrifi cation and Downward Spiral: Socio-spatial change and persistence in residential neighbourhoods of selected CEE urban regions. Our analysis is based on 536 questionnaires (125–150 in each case study areas). 203 intensifi ed mostly because of favourable mortgage loans which att racted inves- tors. The inauguration of new rehabilitation programmes (Corvin–Szigony) and the continuing SEM-IX project also contributed to the boom in the hous- ing market (Kovács, Z. 2006). The demolition of old deteriorated buildings and the construction of new ones generated changes in the local population. Aft er the fall of the state-socialist regime in 1989, the decrease of the inner city population strengthened not only because of the general demographical decline but also as a consequence of the migration trends. During the housing privatisation the majority of the fl ats were sold to tenants, thus the new owners could decide whether to stay in their old fl ats or to sell them. Those who could aff ord moved to the suburbs while the older and poorer population remained (Csanádi, G.–Csizmady, A.–Kőszeghy, L.–Tomay, K. 2007). Comparing the housing prices in the diff erent quarters of Budapest in 1997 – before the real estate boom – and in 2006, we can conclude that the most expensive areas have remained the same (Fig. 1). The highest prices are registered in the traditionally high class districts of Buda and in the 5th district because of its good central location (near to the most important institutions) and its valuable building stock (Székely, J. 2006). While in 1997 the cheap- est quarters were the entire 7th and the central part of the 8th districts, ten years later this situation had changed entirely. The cheapest quarters can no be found in parts of Central- Józsefváros. The increasing prices of Central-Ferencváros are the result of rehabilitation programmes (Egedy, T.–Kovács, Z.–Székely, J.–Szemző, H. 2005). The strongest rise of prices was recorded in the 8th and 7th dis- tricts where the cheapest quar- ters are located (Fig. 2). This dy- namism is explained by the high number of new constructions. A research project carried out in 2005 revealed that the share of renovated buildings is much higher in the inner part of 8th and 9th districts than in central part of the 8th district, and the whole 7th district (Fig. 3). Fig. 1a,b. Housing prices in 1997 and 2006 (1,000 HUF/sqm. Source: KSH Ingatlanadatt ár 1997, 2006 204 Renovation of housing blocks in the most cases meant re- painting of the buildings (except of rehabilitation pro- grammes) and didn’t result suffi cient change in the struc- ture of fl ats nor the dwellers. The growth of housing prices is the highest in those quar- ters where the buildings are deteriorated, but there are lots of new constructions. We have selected four case study areas in the Pest side (Fig. 4). All of them are in diff erent phase of the re- newal. Their housing stock is relatively old: 80–90% of the buildings were built before 1945, most of them are 3–5 stories buildings, but there are diff erences in their con- dition. Taking a good look at the data on the size of dwell- ings (Table 1) and the maps of housing prices and renovation, we can notice that the biggest fl ats and renovat- ed building stock can be found in Inner-Ferencváros. Inner-Józsefváros also has large fl ats and renovated building stock, but its fl at prices are still much lower. This probably has to do with the fact that the density of restaurants, pubs is smaller in Inner-Józsefváros than in Inner-Ferencváros. By contrast, the Fig. 2. Change of housing prices Fig. 3. Proportion of renovated buildings (%), 2006/1997/2005. Source: KSH Ingatlanadatt ár 1997, 2006. Source: own survey. Table 1. Some features of case study areas in 2001 Case study areas Ratio of children below 14 (%) Ratio of population over 60 (%) Ratio of population with diploma (%) Ratio of dwellings over 80 m2 (%) 1. Inner-Terézváros 2. Inner-Józsefváros 3. Magdolna- quarter 4. Inner-Ferencváros 8.8 10.0 16.0 11.2 29.9 25.2 19.3 23.8 30.4 29.6 14.1 30.5 27.1 27.1 13.6 32.3 Source: Census 2001. 205 concentration of cultural institutions and cafés is higher in Inner-Terézváros (Földi, Zs. 2006), however, its building stock is in worse condition for lack of renovation. Magdolna-quarter is characterised by small fl ats, not yet renovated building stock, lack of shops and services and its inhabitants are traditionally poorer than those living in the inner parts of the city. The rehabilitation pro- gramme of the quarter started in 2005 (Kondor, A.Cs.–Horváth, D. 2008). The number of inhabitants was about 3,000–4,000 in all of the case study areas in 2001, but the composition of local society and the structure of housing stock are quite diff erent (Table 1). Our sample survey has also detected many and various opinions of local people about their local environment, local society and mobility. Fig. 4. Location of case study areas 206 Socio-demographic diff erences between the old dwellers and the newcomers In our survey we examine the two major groups which are: the old dwellers, who lived in their fl at before 1989 and the newcomers who moved to their fl at aft er 2000 (the boom of the housing market started at the very end of the nineties). Each of the groups covers the 40% of the total sample. The proportion of newcomers is the highest in the Magdolna-quarter (47.7%, while 30–37% in the others) but the share of young people (below 29 years) among these newcomers is much lower than in other districts. T he new c o mers are signifi- cantly younger and better educated (Table 2) in every sample district. The proportion of the elderly (who are gen- erally less mobile) is below 20% even in the Magdolna-quarter where the share of young is lower than in the other districts. This shows that the reasons of moving to Magdolna-quarter are diff erent: in this area proportion of the less educated newcomers is the highest of the young people are the lowest. The more generation households are also numerous in Magdolna-quarter (18.8% while only 10% in the other areas) not only among the traditional dwellers, but also among the newcomers. The high proportion of this household type in the inner city is the result of poverty: several young couples with children move to their parents home because they are not able to buy or rent a fl at of their own. Less of the newcomers than the old inhabitants live in single person households, more of them in fl at-sharing communities. This latter type’s presence is strikingly strong in Inner-Terézváros. The fl at sharing community – which is a typical solution for students and young employees who need cheap fl ats – is very rare in Magdolna-quar-T ab le 2 . S oc io -d em og ra ph ic c ha ra ct er is ti cs o f t he o ld in ha bi ta nt s (m ov ed in b ef or e 19 90 ) a nd th e ne w co m er s (m ov ed in si nc e 20 00 ) Pe rc en ta ge o f t he In ne r- Te ré zv ár os In ne r- Jó zs ef vá ro s M ag d ol na - qu ar te r In ne r- Fe re nc vá ro s –1 98 9 20 00 – –1 98 9 20 00 – –1 98 9 20 00 – –1 98 9 20 00 – Si ng le p er so n ho us eh ol d s Fa m ili es w it h ch ild re n M or e- ge ne ra ti on h ou se ho ld s Fl at s ha ri ng c om m un it ie s Yo un g pe op le (b el ow 3 5 ye ar s ) E ld er ly (a bo ve 6 0 ye ar s) P ri m ar y ed uc at io n or le ss H ig he r ed uc at io n d ip lo m a 40 .3 14 .9 17 .9 1. 5 7. 5 67 .2 6. 0 53 .7 21 .7 23 .9 0. 0 23 .9 73 .9 6. 5 6. 5 56 .5 30 .9 14 .6 16 .4 3. 6 16 .4 54 .5 18 .1 30 .9 21 .3 34 .1 6. 4 12 .8 61 .7 8. 5 6. 4 46 .8 30 .2 15 .1 24 .5 0. 0 9. 4 50 .9 29 .3 9. 4 15 .5 38 .0 8. 5 1. 4 47 .8 11 .6 31 .0 23 .9 34 .4 21 .3 16 .4 1. 6 8. 2 59 .0 26 .2 41 .0 21 .6 21 .6 2. 7 16 .2 60 .4 2. 9 2. 7 56 .8 207 ter despite the fact that the rent must be lower here than in the other areas. This quarter does not seem to att ract students, which is not only explained by its deteriorated building stock but also by the composition of its local society. Reasons for moving into the inner city The decision about moving to a fl at primarily depends on the apartment’s characteristics and on the building’s location. Except Magdolna- quarter, there are not crucial diff erences be- tween our sample areas in the importance of fl at parameters. The dwellers choice is mainly infl uenced by the area and price (Table 3). A separate analysis of newcomers and older inhabitants motivations allow us to compare the reasons of moving to new areas during two very diff erent periods: before the change of regime and during the last decade. The most frequent explanation of those who moved in before 1990 was that they did not have other options. The housing market didn’t function; the inner city fl ats were owned by the district council in most cases. Because of neglect and lack of care and renovation (and for lack of comfort in some cases) these fl ats were not among the most favoured. The central location became the most important factor in all of the examined quarters aft er 2000. In Inner-Ferencváros, the reputation of the area also had an important impact, thanks to the revitalisation of Ráday street (it was men- tioned by almost 20% of the newcomers). The survey results do not confi rm our hypothesis: the concentration of restaurants and cultural in- stitutions wasn’t a major factor of the newcom- ers’ choice. Nevertheless, its impact is clearly visible in inner-Terézváros where this concen- tration is signifi cantly stronger than in the other quarters (especially in Magdolna-quarter). Ta bl e 3. R ea so ns o f m ov in g in to th e qu ar te r (% o f m ov er s w ho m en ti on ed th e gi ve n re as on ) R ea so ns o f m ov in g in to th e qu ar te r In ne r- Te ré zv ár os In ne r- Jó zs ef vá ro s M ag d ol na - qu ar te r In ne r- Fe re nc vá ro s –1 98 9 20 00 – –1 98 9 20 00 – –1 98 9 20 00 – –1 98 9 20 00 – W or ki ng p la ce is n ea rb y Fa m ily /f ri en d s ar e liv in g he re R es ta ur an ts , b ar s, c ul tu ra l v en ue s ar e ne ar by T he a re a is w el l s er ve d b y pu bl ic tr an sp or t T he g oo d r ep ut at io n of th e re si d en ti al a re a Fa m ily r ea so ns , a ss ig na ti on , d id n' t fi n d a ny d w el lin g el se w he re 15 .8 17 .5 1. 8 8. 8 0. 0 40 .4 37 .8 17 .8 8. 9 26 .7 2. 2 11 .1 9. 3 11 .6 0. 0 11 .6 2. 3 51 .2 27 .7 12 .8 4. 3 29 .8 4. 3 27 .7 20 .0 10 .0 0. 0 20 .0 0. 0 50 .0 27 .1 25 .7 1. 4 25 .7 0. 0 40 .0 21 .6 33 .3 0. 0 7. 8 5. 9 27 .5 19 .4 8. 3 5. 6 38 .9 19 .4 16 .7 208 The reasons of moving in show the imagination or the expectation of the newcomers (near 80% of newcomers lived in another part of the city or outside before). The satisfaction based on the experiences of the dwellers (and their expectation). Satisfaction with the neighbourhood The level of satisfaction is shown by the answers to the question “Would you rec- ommend a good friend to move to your residential area? And why?” There isn’t sig- nifi cant diff erence between the newcomers and the traditional dwellers in this respect, their preferences are similar. In Magdolna- quarter half of the inhabitants would not recommend their own neighbourhood to their friends. The dwellers of the other three areas are less critical (mostly in Inner-Fer- encváros where 78.4% would recommend it), probably because of the revitalisation of the quarter which improved its reputation (Table 4). The most important source of satis- faction is the central location and the easy availability which is evident in the case of inner city quarters. In Inner-Ferencváros and Józsefváros the condition of build- ings and streets was a more positive fac- tor than in the other two areas. However, it is a more important factor contributing to the dissatisfaction in every case, mostly in Inner-Terézváros, because of the lack of renovation. In Inner-Terézváros one-sixth of the respondents mentioned cultural ameni- ties and night life as a reason for moving in. Interestingly enough, this share was only 9% in Inner-Ferencváros where the concentra- tion of cafés and restaurants is higher than in the other inner city neighbourhoods. Though it is a well known fact that the re- vitalized Ráday street (transformed into a pedestrian area full of open air restaurants Ta bl e 4. S ha re o f t he m os t i m po rt an t s ou rc es o f s at is fa ct io ns /d is sa ti sf ac ti on a s a pe rc en ta ge o f t ho se r es po nd en ts w ho re po rt ed to b e sa ti sfi e d/ di ss at is fi e d w it h th ei r re si de nt ia l a re a (o pe n qu es ti on ) In d ic at or s In ne r- Te ré zv ár os In ne r- Jó zs ef vá ro s M ag d ol na - qu ar te r In ne r- Fe re nc vá ro s Sh ar e of s at is fi ed 55 .9 71 .4 40 .3 78 .4 So ur ce s of s at is fa ct io n (% o f s at is fi ed ) C it y ce nt er C on d it io n of b ui ld in gs , c al m , c le an e nv ir on m en t C ul tu ra l a nd n ig ht li fe R ec on st ru ct io n/ ne w c on st ru ct io n S h ar e of d is sa ti sfi e d 73 .7 13 .2 18 .4 2. 6 25 .7 67 .8 20 .0 6. 7 7. 8 19 .8 43 .3 11 .7 0. 0 10 .0 48 .3 60 .2 22 .4 9. 2 7. 1 15 .4 So ur ce s of d is sa ti sf ac ti on (% o f d is sa ti sfi e d ) 209 and cafés) improved the reputation of its environment, the local people do not regard it as a completely positive factor (there are permanent confl icts between the inhabitants of Ráday street and the owners of the restaurants). In Magdolna-quarter the major source of dissatisfaction is the composi- tion of local society. Half of the dissatisfi ed respondents mentioned the local people in general (9.7% named the gypsies) and other 9.7% the public security. Though the condition of buildings is much worse here than in the other inner city districts, “only” 23,6% mentioned it as a factor of their dissatisfaction. Potential moving plans of inhabitants The local population’s att itude toward the residential area can also be exam- ined through an analysis of the migration potential, the moving plans of the present inhabitants. A signifi cant part of population (32.8%) want to leave the inner city districts. This rate is about 30% in the Magdolna-quarter and almost 40% in Inner-Terézváros (Fig. 5). However, the share of potential movers is higher in the areas where rehabilitation projects were not carried out, their lack isn’t the only reason to move. There are diff erences between the potential movers: in Inner-Terézváros three quarters of the families with children want to move, while in Magdolna the household types do not seem to infl uence the moving intentions. The age-impact is similarly varied: while in Magdolna- quarter half of the young (under 40) want to move, in Inner-Terézváros 80% of them have similar intentions. Fig. 5. Moving plans of the inner city inhabitants 210 The main reasons for moving are connected to the insuffi cient size of fl ats, and to lifestyle and family changes in all case study areas. Beyond these motivations, the characteristics of the neighbourhoods also have some impact on the moving plans. The lack of green areas, the noise and environmental pollution seem to be an important factor mostly in Inner-Terézváros where more than 40% of those who are willing to move mentioned these problems (Berényi, E.–Kondor, A.Cs.–Szabó, B. 2008). In Magdolna-quarter the strongest push factor is the unpleasant social surrounding, almost 40% mentioned it as a factor of moving out. The bad status of buildings was also important: 22% mentioned it in Magdolna-quarter, 13% in Inner-Terézváros, while in the other areas it did not have a signifi cant impact on the moving plans. The problems in Inner-Terézváros are connected to the physical condition of the quarter, its deteriorated state explains that so many inhabitants want to move to the ag- glomeration or to the countryside. Despite of the above mentioned problems, the overwhelming majority of inner city population (67.2 %) wants to stay. Not only the elderly but also the inhabitants between 40 and 60 years are ‘faithful’ to their district. Those who live in more-generation households are especially willing to stay. The reasons of staying are similar in every quarter: half of the inhabitants are satisfi ed with their fl at, 20–30% is satisfi ed with the location of the quarter. The answer ”I can not aff ord another dwelling” was also frequent. Numerous people (35–38%) of the respondents explained their intention to stay in this way. This share was below the average (only 17%) in Inner-Terézváros. In this quarter only the old dwellers referred to fi nancial diffi culties, while in the others the new inhabitants also gave us an explanation of that kind. Opinions about local society The opinion of inhabitants about the change of local society suggests that moving into the inner city has intensifi ed for the last years. In the Magdolna- quarter one third, but in the other districts about half of the respondents claim that certain social groups (which are diff erent from the traditional residents) have emerged recently. In the Magdolna-quarter the share of gypsies has increased according to almost half of all respondents (Table 5). Another newly emerging group is a segment of foreigners (Arab, Chinese and Vietnamese). About 11% of the re- spondent mentioned their arrival, but none of them used the term “foreigner”, they named their racial group. Both the language and the actual composition of foreigners are diff erent in Inner-Terézváros where half of the respondents claim that foreigners (not diff erentiated by their country origin) have moved to the quarter. They are supposedly students and young employees of inter- 211 national companies. Their emergence is also reported by about one fi ft h of the inhabitants in the other two inner quarters, where the young people were regarded as the dominant group of movers. A growing number of families with children was not reported either in the upgrading areas or in the low status Magdolna-quarter. Increased in migration of people with high income was only mentioned in Inner-Terézváros. Views about the city The mental map of Budapest seems to be equally conservative and stable in the most and less favoured areas (STUDIO METROPOLITANA 2006). Our sample survey results confi rm this statement in general, but we can also detect some signifi cant diff erences. A comparison of the views of traditional residents and newcomers reveals that the latt er ones have a more positive opinion about the inner city districts in Inner-Ferencváros and Inner-Terézváros (Table 6). By contrast, in the Magdolna-quarter the newcomers’ opinion is less favourable. This can be explained by their lower social status. The share of young and students is smaller among the new inhabitants in Magdolna-quarter than in the other inner city districts; and primarily these groups fi nd the inner city preferable. In those quarters where new functions emerged the opinion of the new inhabitants was much bett er than the traditional dwellers. Table 5. Is there an increased moving in of certain household types during the last years? Share of the respondents who mentioned the specifi c household types (%) open question Household types Magdolna- quarter Inner- Terézváros Inner- Józsefváros Inner- Ferencváros Families with children Young Foreigner Chinese, Vietnamese, Arab Gypsies Poor People with high income 3,6 20,0 5,5 10,9 45,5 3,6 1,8 3,2 33,9 51,6 – – 1,6 9,7 5,6 59,7 20,8 2,8 2,8 2,8 – 1,5 69,7 19,7 – – – 6,1 Table 6. Share of the inhabitants who named the districts as the most valuable areas of the city (%) open question Most valued area Inner- Terézváros Inner- Józsefváros Magdolna- quarter Inner- Ferencváros –1989 2000– –1989 2000– –1989 2000– –1989 2000– Inner city (5th – 9th) Buda (1st, 2nd, 3rd,11th,12th districts) Agglomeration 25.9 63.0 13.0 36.6 58.5 26.8 25.0 59.1 13.6 24.2 57.6 30.3 32.7 55.1 20.4 17.2 58.6 22.4 22.0 58.0 24.0 39.4 54.5 30.3 212 The traditionally most appreciated districts of Buda (fi rst of all, the 2nd district where Rózsadomb – the symbol of wealth – is found) reach the higher rank in the mental map of the inner city inhabitants. The suburban sett lements around Budapest are more preferred by the younger newcomers; this shows that the demand for suburbanization exists. In the opinion of another segment of residents, the inner city neigh- bourhoods belong to the worst parts of the capital. The diff erence between the mental maps of the old and new population is obvious, mostly in the case of the 9th district which is much less liked by the old dwellers than by the new- comers (Table 7). The image of the 8th district is varied: those who live in the inner part of Józsefváros are less critical towards the district, than who live in the Central part. The new inhabitants of Magdolna-quarter diff er again from the other newcomers, their opinion is similar to that of the older inhabitants. To be summarised: the preferences of the newcomers and old dwellers are diff erent. The members of the latt er group are more likely to refuse to live in the inner city than the new inhabitants (Table 8). Only the inhabitants of the Magdolna-quarter do not refuse the inner city, supposedly they could not imagine to live in another type of housing and their dissatisfaction is related to the local society, not to the environmental problems. Comparing the ranks with other housing types, we can say that the newcomers of the inner city however prefer the family houses in the green (half of them put it to fi rst rank), they less refuse their recent living environ- ment than the housing estates (70–80% except of the Magdolna-quarter where only 44%) and a bit more the suburban family houses. Table 7. Share of the inhabitants who named the districts as the least valuable areas of the city (%) open question Least valued area Inner- Terézváros Inner- Józsefváros Magdolna- quarter Inner- Ferencváros –1989 2000– –1989 2000– –1989 2000– –1989 2000– Inner city (5th–9th) 6th district 7th district 8th district 9th district 68.5 5.6 18.5 63.0 24.1 62.5 2.5 5.0 62.5 12.5 78.6 9.5 16.7 54.8 31.0 57.5 2.5 2.5 50.0 10.0 93.9 6.1 18.4 89.8 14.3 86.4 3.0 15.2 80.3 13.6 82.0 4.0 14.0 60.0 18.0 76.5 2.9 26.5 73.5 5.9 Table 8. Regardless of your fi nancial situation where would you like to live? Rank of inner city Inner- Terézváros Inner- Józsefváros Magdolna- quarter Inner- Ferencváros –1989 2000– –1989 2000– –1989 2000– –1989 2000– 1 – First choice 5 – Last choice 32.8 25.0 28.9 13.3 18.5 51.9 41.3 13.0 32.7 2.0 22.7 6.1 27.1 39.0 27.0 13.5 213 Conclusion The inner parts of Budapest have changed signifi cantly both in terms of infra- structure, the physical environment and local society – hence the changes in the image of the city. The newcomers, who moved to aft er 2000 are younger, higher educated and while the old dwellers who lived in their recent fl at before 1990 are elder, mostly live in single households. So the newcomers’ and the old inhabitants’ att itude towards the inner city is very diff erent. Not only the good location but also the improving prestige (9th district) and the cultural and night life (6th district) seem to become important to the newcomers. Their view of the inner city districts is much more positive than that of the older dwellers though a signifi cant share of them wants to leave for the suburban belt. Whether or not the inhabitants fi nd it advantageous to live in inner city quarters depends on the condition of the buildings, on the concentration of functions, and also on the composition of local society. The deteriorated build- ing stock seems to be the most important factor of disappointment, except of the Magdolna-quarter where the local society. The lack of green area and the level of noise pollution are also problematic mostly in the Inner-Terézváros where these are strong connection with the moving plan. The traditionally most appreciated districts are in Buda side within the newcomers and the older dwellers, while the suburban sett lements around Budapest are more preferred by the younger newcomers. The preferences of the inner city within of the newcomers and old dwellers are diff erent. The members of the latt er group are more likely to refuse to live in the inner city than newer inhabitants. REFERENCES Berényi, E.–Kondor, A.Cs.–Szabó, B. 2008. The social aspects of green areas in Budapest with special regards to migration questionnaire research in six sample areas. – In: Alföldi, Gy.–Kovács, Z. (eds): Urban Green Book. MTA HAS – Rév8–ÉTK. pp. 104–121. Csanádi, G.–Csizmady, A.–Kőszeghy, L.–Tomay, K. 2007. A városrehabilitáció társadalmi hatá- sai Budapesten. – In: Enyedi, Gy. (szerk.): A történelmi városközpontok átalakulásának társadalmi hatásai. MTA Társadalomkutató Központ, Budapest, pp. 93–118. Egedy, T.–Kovács, Z.–Székely, J.–Szemző, H. 2005. Fővárosi rehabilitációs programok és eredmények. – In Egedy T. (ed.): Városrehabilitáció és társadalom. – MTA FKI, Budapest, pp. 175–188. Földi, Zs. 2006. Neighbourhood Dynamics in Inner-Budapest: A Realist Approach. - Faculteit Geowetenschappen. Universiteit Utrecht. 345 p. Hegedüs J.–Teller N. 2006. A lakáspolitika és a lakásmobilitás kapcsolatának elemzése. – Városkutatás Kft . Kondor, A.Cs.–Horváth, D. 2008. Challenges and experiences of a participative green space development in Budapest-Józsefváros. – Urbani Izziv (Urban Challenge) 19. 2. pp. 174–182. 214 Kovács, Z.–Wiessner, R. 1996. A lakáspiac átalakulásának főbb jellemzői és városszerkezeti következményei Budapest belső városrészeiben. – In: Dövényi, Z. szerk.: Tér- Gazdaság-Társadalom. Huszonkét tanulmány Berényi Istvánnak. MTA FKI, Budapest, pp. 29–48. Kovács, Z. 2006. Social and Economic Transformation of Historical Districts in Budapest. – In: Enyedi, Gy.–Kovács, Z. eds.: Social Changes and Social Sustainability in Historical Urban Centres: The Case of Central Europe. – Centre for Regional Studies HAS, Pécs. pp. 39–64. KSH 1997. Ingatlanadatt ár. KSH 2006. Ingatlanadatt ár. STUDIO METROPOLITANA 2006. Hova megyünk lakni? - avagy preferenciák a lakóhely kiválasztásánál Budapesten. –Kutatási jelentés 2006. június. Székely, J. 2006. Reasons of Local Housing Market Price Diff erences in Hungary. – Hungarian Statistical Review. Special Number 12. pp. 174–188.