95Book Review – Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 67 (2018) (1) 91–102.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.67.1.8 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 67 2018 (1) Brade, I. and Neugebauer, C.S. (eds.): Urban Eurasia – Cities in Transformation. Berlin, DOM publishers, 2017. 288 p. The book invites us to a journey across the cities of the former Soviet Union, from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok, from Baku to Almaty, and intends to show us how urban space and society have changed and are still changing during the time of transition. The album-like publication is the 58th volume in the “Basics” series of DOM publishers, a series featuring a wide range of topics in architecture and urban de- velopment. This format addresses a broad audience with short texts, informative diagrams, and plenty of photographs. The volume heavily draws on the scientific results of “ira.urban”, a 4-year-long international research project conducted by the Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography, Leipzig. The “ira.urban” or “Urban re- configuration in post-Soviet space” project aimed to investigate how cities in the former Soviet Union an- swer the challenges of economic and social changes generated by the emergence of new nation states and globalisation. The research project was supported by an international scientific network, the participants of which also contributed to the current volume. The latent question whether urban development in cities east of the former Iron Curtain after the socialist, or Soviet, regime is still influenced by past practices, heritage and settings, or whether the new trends of globalisation, individualisation and, for example, neo- liberalisation are more significant factors, has long been of concern to urban researchers. Numerous publications have been released analysing the politi- cal, economic, and social changes, and in some cases their consequences in the urban spaces of Central and Eastern European post-socialist cities (cf. edited col- lections of Andrusz, G. et al. 1996; Enyedi, G. 1998; Hamilton, I. et al. 2005; Tsenkova, S. and Nedović- Budić, Z. 2006; Stanilov, K. 2007). But the other, much larger part of the former Eastern Bloc, namely the ex- Soviet states and their cities, were hardly studied by urban researchers, at least till the 2010s. Since then, the work of urban anthropologists in particular has come to the forefront in post-Soviet urban society and urban space research (cf. Alexander, C. et al. 2007; Gdaniec, C. 2010; Darieva, T. et al. 2011; Schröder, P. 2017). This body of research examines primarily the appro- priation and use of public urban spaces by different social groups, mainly in the form of case studies. The benefit of the current collection is that it takes a comparative approach: it tries to make comparisons in time, including pre-socialist and socialist times as well as the period during and after transition, and also to compare cities in the post-Soviet space, besides giving insights into several urban topics such as hous- ing, infrastructure, economy, planning, and the social perception and appropriation of urban space. The major questions are, among others, who the winners and losers of the transition are, who can be identified as key actors, and to what extent are forces driven (still) by the state? The first chapter outlines the context by taking a macro-scale view of the urban network. It presents the characteristics of the Soviet urban system and the challenges that emerged after the dissolution of the USSR, such as the growing competition among cit- ies. Firstly, Frost investigates spatial changes in the post-Soviet city system, claiming that the urban net- work is being transformed from a relatively balanced structure (as an outcome of spatial equalisation) to a polarised system. Urban shrinkage heavily affects both medium- and small-size towns, and especially monocities (mono-functional cities). Meanwhile, capital cities, large urban centres and their satellite towns, and cities close to specific natural resources like gas or oil, keep growing in significance. The pro- cess of polarisation is confirmed by Zubarevich as well, adding that it is not accompanied by significant changes in the urban hierarchy or in inter-urban ties: “a classical centre-periphery model is a privilege in this space” (p. 39). Although polycentricity will grow within the post-Soviet region, and the role of Moscow as primary centre is gradually eroded, there are no other cities that can be considered as strong alterna- tive poles. The contribution by Sgibnev and Tuvikene 96 Book Review – Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 67 (2018) (1) 91–102. raises issues regarding the maintenance of urban in- frastructure, with a special focus on public transport, as well as the social consequences of the termination of subsidised provisions, e.g. in housing. “The end of infrastructure provision sounded the disintegration of society” (p. 55) and sometimes may have enhanced the nostalgia for the Soviet Union. That is also why the two authors suggest to “draw attention to social and cultural aspects of infrastructure, their role for identity formation and power relations” (p. 60). The second chapter deals with urban housing and how planning, construction, and maintenance have changed during the transformation in the three main types of residential areas: in the inner-city, on large housing estates, and in suburban areas. Golubchikov, Badyina and Makhrova report on inner-city recon- structions, ranging from less violent forms such as kommunalki (shared homes) resettlement and reno- vation to newly-built gentrification, often at the site of destroyed urban heritage, or at the expense of public and green spaces. Due to weak regulation or the improper application of rules, construction devel- opments, e.g. high-rise housing, could also result in highly eclectic urban landscapes. Nonetheless, these phenomena are similarly known in post-socialist countries (Hirt, S. 2012). The study by Neugebauer provides a good overview of the ideological back- ground, urban design concepts, socio-political dimen- sions and the social appreciation of Soviet mass hous- ing, while making comparisons with their Western European counterparts. Neugebauer also scrutinises the legal and informal changes in housing practices. A revival of mass housing on the urban fringes of growing cities, either as private investment or as national housing programmes is also noticeable. Golubchikov and Makhrova describe housing pro- cesses in exurban areas: previous urban-sprawl in Soviet and early post-Soviet times by dachas (second home for non-permanent use), and more recently, often at the site of these dacha areas, by kottedzhi (cottages, villas), or even by gated, elite settlements. At the same time, city edges are also characterised by newly-built mass housing, giving home to less well-off families, and even the informal settlements of migrants are present. As a result, “the periphery has also emerged as a territory where social inequality is spatially most visible” (p. 178). The third chapter addresses urban economic trans- formation, primarily the change in the institutional environment (transition to market economy) and the structural shift due to the growing importance of the service sector and consumer goods industry, and their impact on urban structure. Kuznetsov, Chetverikova and Baronina give evidence in their study that de- industrialisation is not an overarching tendency in the post-Soviet space, and there are some successful examples of industrial modernisation in metallurgy and car production. These developments are financed either from state investments or from private capital, which often means foreign, especially Asian, direct investments. Some of the monotowns were effectively turned into naukograds, science cities – again, with the help of state subsidy. However, in (mono)cities where unsuccessful industries are present (e.g. agricultural machinery, civil electronics), social problems are not analysed. Axenov discusses the retail evolution in the post-Soviet urban space, first the flood of kiosks and ground floor capitalism (see also Tosics, I. 2006), and later on the more regulated, but at the same time also more exclusionary and exclusive shopping centres. These commercial space developments are responses to the insufficient supply during the Soviet era and to the high demand in post-Soviet times. Moreover, petty vending as source of (additional) income was and still is a response to the impoverishment of the population. Turgel and Vlasova give examples in their contribu- tion to tertiarisation in the cityscape, based on experi- ences from Yekaterinburg and its region. The restruc- turing of the economy affected both inner city areas and the urban edge. The function of buildings has changed, former industrial headquarters have been turned into banks, offices, or commercial buildings. Retail suburbanisation took place especially through international retail chains. In the final, fourth chapter, cities are studied as “material stage to display and means to negotiate societal diversity and conflicts“ (p. 234). Its essays deal with micro-scale urbanity; social and cultural as- pects are considered. The study by Rekhviashvili and Neugebauer focuses on the use of urban public space. On the one hand, citizens use urban public space as a stage for (pro or contra) protests, and they use it in their everyday life, in the routines and practices they have partly inherited from pre-Soviet or Soviet times. On the other hand, the state utilises urban public space to foster nation building, which might also be a form of how political power is still being projected on urban space. Materialised forms of nation build- ing and memory policy are the main topics of the contribution by Kinossian. In former Soviet member states built Soviet legacies, architecture, and monu- mental art have been handled in various ways in the post-Soviet period. In some places they have been destroyed or removed (e.g. in Ukraine, Azerbaijan), while elsewhere they remained untouched. They are either intentionally kept in the absence of other unifying symbols (Russia), or are simply neglected (for the Central and Eastern European context see Czepczyński, M. 2008). In addition, built heritage from pre-Soviet times in historic cities is in danger of economic transformation and marketisation. The cultural landscape “has become a battlefield of preservation values and interests of profit extrac- tion” (p. 262). This phenomenon, profit maximisa- 97Book Review – Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 67 (2018) (1) 91–102. tion, is also explained by Appenzeller in the section “Urban planning and governance”. He argues for “engaging citizens more actively and reducing the hierarchical system that is vulnerable to corruption and all too easily hijacked by the political or economic ambition of individuals” (p. 273). Western European planning tools, however, can only be adapted to post- Soviet countries to a lesser extent. Low civil activ- ity, especially towards urban issues, and the weak institutionalisation of civil society are discussed by Mezentsev, Neugebauer and Mezentseva as well. These shortcomings and a “disbelief in any effective- ness of public activism” (p. 276) (similarly to Hirt’s notion of ‘privatism’, Hirt, S. 2012) are claimed to be the heritage of Soviet times. Nonetheless, proactive and counteractive activities are present in post-Soviet cities too. Counteractive activities are aimed mainly at the protection of built heritage, memorials, public and green spaces, and at opposition to demolition and new construction. Based on these studies, it is striking how the role of state is constantly changing in urban planning and development, and, consequently, in terms of its influ- ence on living and residential forms as well. During the Soviet-era, as urbanisation had key relevance, planning extended even to the organisation of eve- ryday life, for instance in the ‘Socgoroda’, which were laboratories “for socialism’s ideal interaction between working, living, and recreating” (p. 219). At the dawn of the post-Soviet era, the “almost lawless environ- ment” (p. 183) could not prevent the “violation with existing plans, norms and heritage” (p. 87). Later on, the state regained its role in both regulation and investment, supporting, among other things, social housing, the modernisation of heavy industry, and the conversion of some monotowns into science cities. It should be noted that although the book was not intended to give a comprehensive overview, the cases of Russian (large) cities are well stressed (especially in Chapter 4) through the examples selected by the authors. Instances from other ex-Soviet states are less numerous and are generally limited to capital cities. However, the images and short texts provide a broader view. Notwithstanding, extending research to small and medium-size cities would still be desir- able in post-Socialist urban science (Borén, T. and Gentile, M. 2007). The current volume, as a medium for raising awareness, is informative and manages to give an insight into the diversity of post-Soviet cities. From a scientific point of view, especially valuable are some of the highlighted aspects, which could be further used in research: the abandonment of the transitologi- cal focus and the consideration of social and cultural aspects. These are mentioned in the book in connec- tion with studying infrastructure (p. 60) and housing (p. 72), but they are applicable in more general terms as well. All in all, the volume fulfils its purpose and indeed offers an intriguing starting point for further exploration. Orsolya Eszenyi1 R E F E R E N C E S Alexander, C., Buchli, V. and Humphrey, C. eds. 2007. Urban Life in Post-Soviet Asia. London–New York, University College London Press. Andrusz, G., Harloe, M. and Szelényi, I. eds. 1996. Cities after Socialism: Urban and Regional Change and Conflict in Post-Socialist Societies. Oxford, Blackwell. Borén, T. and Gentile, M. 2007. Metropolitan pro- cesses in post-communist states: an introduction. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 89. (2): 95–110. Czepczyński, M. 2008. Cultural Landscapes of Post- Socialist Cities: Representation of Powers and Needs. Aldershot, Ashgate. Darieva, T., Kaschuba, W. and Krebs, M. eds. 2011. Urban Spaces after Socialism: Ethnographies of Public Places in Eurasian Cities. Frankfurt, Campus Verlag. Enyedi, G. ed. 1998. Social Change and Urban Restructuring in Central Europe. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó. Gdaniec, C. ed. 2010. Cultural Diversity in Russian Cities: The Urban Landscape in the Post-Soviet Era. Oxford, Berghahn Books. Hamilton, F.E.I., Dimitrovska, A.K. and Picheler- Milanović, N. eds. 2005. Transformation of Cities in Central and Eastern Europe: Toward Globalization. Tokyo, United Nations University Press. Hirt, S. 2012. Iron Curtains. Gates, Suburbs and Privatization of Space in the Post-Socialist City. Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell. Schröder, P. ed. 2017. Urban Spaces and Lifestyles in Central Asia and Beyond. Abingdon–New York, Routledge. Stanilov, K. ed. 2007. The Post-Socialist City. Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after Socialism. Dordrecht, Springer. Tosics, I. 2006. Spatial restructuring in post-socialist Budapest. In The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe. Space, Institutions and Policy. Ed.: Tsenkova, S. and Nedović-Budić, Z. Heidelberg, Physica Verlag, 131–150. Tsenkova, S. and Nedović-Budić, Z. eds. 2006. The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe. Space, Institutions and Policy. Heidelberg, Physica Verlag. 1 Doctorate School of Earth Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: eszenyi.orsolya@gmail.com.