The uneven struggle for bluefields: waterfront transformation in post-socialist Bratislava 335 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 63 (3) (2014) 335–352. DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.63.3.7 The uneven struggle for bluefi elds: waterfront transformation in post-socialist Bratislava Branislav MACHALA1 Abstract Waterfront areas are undergoing rapid transformation in many post-socialist cities. This paper focuses on the uneven access to the waterfront in post-socialist Bratislava. We use the bluefi eld concept of Pinch, P. and Munt, I. (2002). The goal of the paper is to investigate the mechanisms and key forces of waterfront transformation in post-socialist Bratislava in the context of institutional practices, where the role of individual stakeholders and planning are critically evaluated. The limited capacity of post-socialist institutions to mediate and respond to the dynamically increasing demand to waterfronts is highlighted. In the paper two case study areas are investigated with sharply diff erent conditions. In the case of Karlova Ves cove contradictions between the use value and exchange value is demonstrated, leading to a sharp struggle among potential users. The transformation of the second chosen area, Jarovce river branch, demonstrates a power invasion in the area and the illegal privatisa- tion of public areas by ‘bett er off ’ people. The comparison of transformations of these two localities in a relatively similar time frame, provides a picture about the uneven struggle for access. Both discussed examples draw att ention to persisting institutional adaptation and the fragile de facto position of the municipality in urban development. Keywords: waterfront transformation; bluefi eld regeneration; uneven development; post- socialist city; urban planning; Bratislava; Introduction Delayed industrial decentralization in post-socialist cities combined with their dynamic adaptation to new socio-economic and political conditions is signifi cantly refl ected at urban waterfronts. Nowadays, urban areas in the vicinity of boatyards previously symbolic for industrial development are adopting to new socio-economic needs. Meantime post-socialist cities open to new fl ows of capital, the globalisation of real estate market, along with other signifi cant factors are gradually changing 1 Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University Prague, Albertov 6, 128 43, Praha 2, Czech Republic. E-mail: branislav.machala@gmail.com 336 their socio-spatial structure. Under these circumstances waterfronts represent areas of confl icts, where diff erent interests of various stakeholders and hierarchy levels are clashing in the fragile post-socialist institutional environment. The post-socialist cities of Central and Eastern Europe (e.g. Belgrade, Bratislava, Budapest, Prague, Tallinn) are good examples for pervasive wa- terfront transformations. However, it is also necessary to underline that these cities have diff erent trajectories and starting positions. The literature to date dedicated to industrial decentralization in post-socialist cities focuses either on the structural-horizontal changes in these cities (e.g. Kiss, É. 2007; Sýkora, L. 2001, 2007; Temelová, J. 2009), or the transformation of selected urban districts (e.g. Buček, J. 2006; Ilík, J. and Ouředníček, O. 2007). Other authors focus on the asymmetric relations between the main stakeholders of urban development and the practices of urban development and planning (e.g. Cook, A. 2010; Nedović-Budić, Z. 2001; Stanilov, K. 2007). Only limited att ention has been paid so far to the radical transformation of urban waterfronts, their causes and conditions; or their wider socio-economic and political implications. This paper aims at evaluating the role of individual stakeholders in the transformation of selected bluefi eld areas in post-socialist Bratislava, with special att ention to the role of public institutions and urban planning. We focus on the ongoing waterfront transformation in Bratislava on the micro-level, with two separate and highly contrasting case studies. Both cases belong to that part of the waterfront which is functionally closely related to the water surface (e.g. harbours, shipyards, bays for water sports, houseboats etc.). The reason why we pay specifi c att ention to these localities is their dependence on water as a public good as well as their social background. Pinch, P. and Munt, I. (2002) consider the infrastructure dependent on water as „bluefi eld“. We understand by this also the adjacent area with primary functions basically dependent on water. Our paper is divided into three parts. In the fi rst section we put the transformation of bluefi eld areas into a wider theoretical context. We provide an overview about the literature on waterfront development and also present key concepts that help identifying areas and defi ning the main driving forces leading to their transformation. The second section of the paper focuses on the transformation of Karlova Ves cove, where the progress shows a struggle between water enthu- siasts and citizens for preservation and development of activities dependant on water. Based on our research we identify three main areas that signifi cantly infl uence the current image of transformation of the area. The third part off ers a contrasting case of transformation, the river branch in Jarovce where we observe the occupation of the area by a closed group of politically, economi- cally and socially powerful people whose status is in sharp contrast with water enthusiasts of Karlova Ves cove. In the conclusion we summarise our fi ndings from the two cases and discuss their wider implications. 337 Conceptualising waterfront transformation Waterfront transformation has been discussed in scientifi c literature for more than half a century. The fi rst studies focused on mutual relationships between city and harbour and visualised them with general models. Later, several pub- lications contributed to the conceptualisation of waterfront transformation (e.g. Hoyle, B. et al. 1988; Bruttomesso, R. 1993; Malone, P. 1997; Marshall, R. 2001; Desfor, G. et al. 2011). Waterfronts have been and oft en are used in favour of pro-growth strategies in the growing international competition of cities. Many urban ge- ographers and authors from other disciplines focused on waterfronts as spatial laboratories. They analysed waterfronts from various perspectives such as the symbolic value of waterfronts regarding the planning or the marketing of the city (Short, J.R. et al. 1993). The confl icting nature of waterfront regeneration and the role of various stakeholders were evaluated in the case of Berlin by Scharenberg, A. and Bader, I. (2009). Perceptions of citizens and the socio-eco- nomic impact of fl agship projects were investigated by Doucet, B. et al. (2010). Signifi cant interest has also been paid to the role of planning documents, ap- plied policies and regimes of governance (e.g. Coiacetto, E. 2007; Hoyle, B. 2000; Breen, A. and Rigby, D. 1994; Feldman, M. 2000; Gordon, D.L.A. 1996, 1997; Marshall, R. 2001; Imrie, R. et al. 2009). However, only a limited number of papers put the emphasis on the conceptualisation of waterfront transformation, its relevance for society, and the complex relationships within urban region at diff erent hierarchical levels. Critical urban geographers looked at the relationship between urbanisation, capital, water and development (e.g. Swynegdouw, E. 2004; Harvey, D. 1989; Malone, P. 1997). Marcuse and Van Kempen, R. (2000) labelled waterfronts as „soft location“, i.e. areas where processes of globalisation and post-fordist trans- formation are even more obvious and have specifi c socio-spatial implications. Only a few studies of waterfront transformation have shown deeper causality and evaluation of outcomes for the city and its society. In a certain way we lack a critical discussion about the legitimacy of the newly built, functionally mixed projects replacing old functions. Where such studies exist, they question their contribution to society as a whole (Pinder, D.A. and Hoyle, B.S. 1992). The movement of people, goods and capital is typical for waterfronts and makes them a gate into the city. Desfor, G. et al. (2011) presented a geographical conceptualisation of waterfront transformation with the ‚fi xity and fl ows‘ concept based on underlining static and dynamic elements of the environment. They pointed out the understanding of waterfronts as places existing within the net- works of historical relationships, through transportation of objects, information and people. These historical relations signifi cantly infl uence the origin of power relations in the whole network. Desfor, G. et al. compares the impacts of power 338 relations on space with the infl uence of fl ows emphasised by Castells, M. (1996), who highlights the importance of informational and technological revolution in the 1980s and its infl uence on economics. The importance of power relations in the multiple transformations of post-socialist cities are also emphasised by Sýkora, L. and Bouzarovski, S. (2012). According to them post-socialist cities are cities in transition which experience revolutionary changes as an outcome of their long societal evolution which has path dependent character (Sýkora, L. 2008). We understand by waterfront transformation a continuous process of urban adaptation from industrial to post-industrial waterfront development triggered by technological innovation and a complex set of socio-economic rela- tions which have been transforming waterfronts into places with a postmodern consumer culture and increasingly segregated places with a dual character. Waterfronts represent transforming localities where people, capital, in- stitutions and politics play a crucial role. Waterfront transformation has usually an overall impact on the city and its region (e.g. the Bilbao eff ect). Waterfronts have been frequently used in place-making and competition for global capital at the expense of social justice and direct social displacement. At the same time we think that during the evaluation of this transformation the geography of places, diff erent social needs, urban hierarchy and institutional environment of diff erent cities cannot be ignored. Therefore, we think that time, space and scale should be fundamental criteria in various att empts to evaluate such transformations. In this paper we focus on specifi c parts of waterfronts which we con- sider especially important when we talk about transforming waterfronts, namely ‘bluefi elds’. Pinch, P. and Munt, I. (2002, p. 172) defi ne ‘bluefi eld’ as “Infrastructures, such as piers, wharfs, jett ies, slipways and boatyards, need to be acknowledged as inextricably related to the use and ‘development’ of waterspaces” and could be reclassifi ed as ‘bluefi eld’ sites”. However, we widen its application for infrastructure as well as adjacent shores i.e. areas with functions that are pri- marilly dependent on water surface and creates a background for water related activities. Or to put it in other words, areas and infrastructure that mediate interactions between water and land. We use the „bluefi eld“ concept to draw the att ention to the heterogeneity of shores which are currently represented in urban planning from a land based perspective and by terrestrial discourse. This heterogeneity has an infl uence on people’s physical access to water and its uneven transformation has therefore social consequences for whom and where these gates are open. This article shows an uneven struggle for these sites in two case studies: Karlova Ves cove and Jarovce river branch. The growing capital value of the waterfront in post-socialist Bratislava generates increasing disconformities between the use and exchange value of these sites, considered also by David Harvey (2014) to be one of the basic con- tradictions of capitalism. Both areas are used for active and passive recreation in an increasingly dense urban core of Bratislava. Therefore, these functions 339 especially in Karloveska Cove have high use value for citizens. On the other hand, increasing capital value of the land increases the pressure and, therefore, the exchange value of this land on the real estate market. As a consequence, new functions with higher exchange value replace water related activities. These disconformities between the use and exchange value have a wider social impact when the popular functions historically located in certain areas are being re- placed according to the exchange value of the land for a signifi cantly narrower group of consumers. Due to the pressure of exchange value such geographically and socially valuable areas are becoming socially more selective and within the current uneven transformation functionally more homogenous. Research questions and methodology The process of waterfront transformation in post-socialist Bratislava character- ised by asymmetric power relations among stakeholders raises several questions: What are the benefi ts of the transformation for the city and its citizens? Does this transformation increase the quality of life of local people and their happiness? Who infl uences the outcomes and impacts of the waterfront transformation? What type of injustices are being created and how they could be avoided? Bear- ing these questions in mind, we focus on cases which provide diff erent access to water for people with diff erent social and power position in the society and we analyse the role of planning and institution in this process. Consequently, we can contribute to the debate on how uneven and dual the transformation really is. The main research techniques we applied were: qualitative analysis of planning and other offi cial documents, content analysis of media coverage, semi-structured in-depth interviews and a fi eld survey. Subsidiary knowledge and information were obtained from a series of public discussions thematically aimed at Bratislava waterfront (2011), from the professional seminar “turn towards the river”2 and‚ “urban-walk”3 in Karlova Ves cove. We evaluated the following spatial planning documents: Land Use Plan of the Slovak capital Bratislava (2007), Changes and amendment to land use plan 02 (2010), Urbanistic zone study Karlova Ves cove (2003) and Law from the 27th of April 1976 on spatial planning and construction order. In the above mentioned spatial planning documents we focused on the obligatory but in some cases also on non-obligatory parts and their perception and im- portance for examined areas of the city. 2 International seminar organised by the author of this article in 2013, was dedicated to the issue of waterfront regeneration. Participants included actors from the public and private sector, academics etc. 3 Urban walk – project organised by Tomáš Hanáčik in Karlova Ves cove in 2013 340 In both cases we fi rst made a chronological reconstruction of the historical genesis of the area mostly based on primary documents (offi cial information documents, petition documents etc. altogether 11 documents), analysed media documents (local newspapers, state-wide journals, web pages and portals etc.) and acquired information from semi-structured discussion. Information was acquired by analysis of daily press, internet and media, veri- fi ed by triangulation – within the primary sources and actors. The statements of stakeholders published on their own web pages were interpreted. Semi-structured interviews with main stakeholders included representa- tives of the city, state institutions; independent professionals; water sportsmen, ac- tivists; prosecutor. They were the main sources and verifying tools of the acquired information and att itudes. In several cases we used phone calls, or email and in the case of newcomers informal discussions. In total 14 people were interviewed – some of them twice in order to verify and specify the collected information. Karlova Ves cove: struggle for access to water Karlova Ves cove represents a valuable area with citywide importance from the environmental point of view as well as from its historical role regarding water sports. Several generations of water sportsmen were trained in the area who rep- resented Slovakia and Czechoslovakia at the most prestigious international sport events. Considering the mechanisms of Karlova Ves cove’s transformation, we identifi ed 3 key areas which signifi cantly infl uence the de- velopment of the area (Figure 1). Portioning Karlova Ves cove: power relations and spatial planning Portioning of Karlova Ves cove is a continuous process. As a fi rst step an ur- banistic study for the area was elaborated, which was followed by changes in relevant spatial planning documents. These changes showed the growing interest of the market towards the cove in favour of higher exchange value (i.e. residential function). The question arises who is favoured by the rezoning process and to what extent urban development is regulated and controlled by the public sector in Bratislava. Before we start the analysis of the planning process it is necessary to underline that the city’s land-use plan (further LUP) itself allows a wide range of interpretations due to the disequilibrium between the obligatory and non-obligatory parts. Fig. 1. Mechanism of waterfront de- velopment at Karlova Ves cove 341 Urbanistic study – a tool for legitimising transformation When the transformation of Karlova Ves cove started (around the turn of the new millennium), a LUP from 1993 regulating the use of the area in scale of 1:25,000 was still valid. The urbanistic study of 2003 elaborated by a private company regulated the area in scale of 1:1,000 and became the main spatial planning groundwork for the ‘Karloveske rameno I.’ project. The project en- visaged the dominance of housing function, surrounded by a boatyard and auxiliary buildings from the west and the reconstruction of the former Slavia complex with a dominant function of water sports in the east. The project was completed between 2004 and 2006 and it became one of the fi rst contemporary interventions at Bratislava’s waterfront. Two newly built residential objects were constructed at the edge of the regulated area (with codes 5014 a 4015). The comparison of the satellite image of the area with the proposals of the urbanistic study shows clearly the development of a poly-functional area (Photo 1 and Figure 2.). This discrepancy between the urbanistic study and reality was caused by the non-obligatory nature of the urbanistic study which has from the legal point of view only recommending character. So while the urbanistic study was created especially for the project, at the end of the day it had no binding infl uence on the extent of designed project. In 2007 the new LUP which integrated main elements of the urbanistic study of 2003 was approved. This brought about an extension of 501 code (func- 4 501 – mixed territories of housing and civic facilities 5 401 – sport, physical education and leisure Photo 1. Satellite image of the area. Source: Google Earth 342 Fig. 2. Complex functional usage proposed by the urbanistic study Source: Urbanistic study, 2003. tionally mixed areas) at the expense of 401 code (areas designated for sport, physical education and leisure) and changed the scale of regulation from 1:1,000 to 1:10,0006. This important change removed from the planning document the detailed resolution of functional and spatial planning in scale 1:1,000, which has been replaced by general regulation of 501 and 401 codes in scale 1:10,000. As later on became clear, the shift in scale of planning documents in combination with extension of code 501, created preconditions for the expansion of mixed- use functions on the land previously dedicated to sport and leisure. Private-public partnership Aft er the completion of the fi rst phase of ‘Karloveske rameno I.’ the transfor- mation of Karlova Ves cove was supposed to continue with the construction of the identical third building with a similar function but diff erent name, on a neighbouring area (Photo 2). During the period of project preparation there 6 It has to be mentioned that regulation of the urbanistic study was non-obligatory – obligatory at that time was regulation of the previous LUP 1:25,000. In other words, if we have ignored the urbanistic study, the obligatory scale has changed from 1:25,000 to 1:10,000. Regardless the urbanistic study being obligatory or not, it is still an offi cial planning document that was elaborated in cooperation between the municipality and elaborator/investor for the purpose of a more detailed regulation of the concerned area. 343 was a change in the defi nition of planning code 401. Although the original one had a less rigorous wording it forbade construction of apartment blocks. However, the acting director of the company stated in a national newspaper that as well as sportsmen from local sport clubs, anyone interested in buying a fl at could live in the building. Surprisingly, the municipality issued a concurrent binding declaration for the object construction even without examining detailed fulfi lling of the regula- tion of the area, for which it was later blamed for by the procurator. The subject matt er of the concurrent binding declaration was att acked by the general att orney offi ce (repeatedly called for by the citizens). The municipality aft er the protest of the general att orney’s offi ce did not approve its previous suggestions, but came up with its own explanation why it cannot approve the previous concurrent binding declaration. So at the end the municipality froze the project due to formal reasons which are not in line with the arguments of citizens and att orney. In other words the municipality defended itself and is still in line with the investment. Photo 2. The proposed scheme of ‘Karloveske rameno III.’ project. Source: www.skyscrapercity.com 344 Who profi ts from spatial plan zone regulation? The selection process of elaborator of planning document for the area was realised on the basis of public procurement, where the main criterion was the price. The reality as one of the respondents noted is “Competition for competi- tion. In reality it is about who is the most courageous to give a price that would not even cover the basic expenses”. The member of the construction and territorial planning committ ee of city district Karlova Ves stated that the offi ce deals with dumping prices. The winner of the public procurement process estimated his two year work of territorial plan elaboration for 1,500 EUR, the second bid was 4,500 EUR. The estimation of a qualifi ed respondent was at minimum 4.5–5 times higher than the price of the current elaborator. The process of selection of private elaborator on the basis of price – not idea (or content and quality), strengthened the power of private actors in elaboration of territorial planning and led to the selection of the same elaborator who prepared the case of study in 2003. It was the mayor of Karlova Ves district who chose the elaborator of the regulatory documentation directly on the basis of the second lowest price in the public procurement process. Land acquisition and public interest The interest of developer in Karlova Ves cove was manifested in buying the plots in the area. The lots included in ‘Karloveské rameno I.’ were expanded on both sides of the project. Almost two months aft er the approval of the new spatial plan (which expanded the surface of 501 code in the area) the city district Karlova Ves sold the public property directly to a developer company without any competition. The sale was initiated by the mayor of Karlova Ves. The representatives of Karlova Ves and the city approved the sale of the estate on the basis of information regarding function and general intention, without any knowledge about specifi c functional and spatial segmentation of the estate (moreover, the estate was crossed by the border dividing the area between codes 401 and 501). Aft er signing the contract of sale, a private-public partnership was set up. It took more than ten months for the developer to fulfi l its obligations ac- cording to the signed contact while the municipality or the city could cancel the contract aft er 30 days. During these ten months, on the one hand a civic petition “Save the access to the Danube and Karlova Ves cove for the citizens” was initiated, while on the other hand the city gave permission for the developer (before it sett led its obligations) to cut out trees in the area still owned by the city. This clearly shows that the municipality favoured private interests. 345 Inclusion in post-socialist city or struggle for survival The civic movement became one of the key stakeholders in the transformation of Karlova Ves cove. It was the activity and endeavour of non-organized public that defended its rights to the area in this uneven struggle. Three weeks aft er the public hearing of the direct sale of the estates in Karlova Ves cove, citizens wrote and signed a petition called “Save the access to Danube and Karlova Ves bay for the citizens”. The citizens used this petition to express clearly their fears of the proposed project. Despite the civic petition, (almost seven months from petition forma- tion) the district mayor and the former mayor of Bratislava signed the contract with the developer company without any selection procedure. Aft er compli- cated obtaining of the information that the estate was fi nally sold, the citizens started again a new petition under diff erent name “Safe the access to the waters of Danube in Karlova Ves cove for the citizens.” Among the main arguments of the petition were: “...signifi cant limitation of sport activities development in this area, mostly for the youngsters; limiting the access of citizens to the river branch of Danube, to the cycle route and new promenade”. The public and water sportsmen clearly declared their feeling that the development is not sup- porting but limiting the development of sports activities in Karlova Ves cove. Jarovce river branch: demonstration of power in the urbanisation of water Boathouses began to appear in the Jarovce river branch of the Danube in Bra- tislava aft er the Velvet Revolution. During communism the Danube as inter- national border-zone was strictly regulated and controlled. Aft er opening the area to the public Jarovce river branch became the target of a small group of wildlife enthusiasts, active fi shermen and water sportsmen whose boats and boathouses started to spread there. In 1993 there were only 3 boathouses in the river branch belonging to pri- vate owners, however, since 2002 their number has started to grow rapidly and by 2001 it reached 146 (Figure 3). Simultaneously, the in- terest in mooring in the Jarovce river branch grew enormously. Fig. 3. Number of boathouses in the Jarovce arm of the Danube. Source: Plus 7 dni 346 The current capacity of mooring in the Danube´s meander in Jarovce is defi ned as 226 positions by the Slovak Water Management Enterprise. Out of them about 150 are already occupied. The average price of a boathouse is estimated to be between 100 and 200 thousand EUR. Rules – just for some In terms of land use regulations we can conclude that the territory is regulated in favour of active recreation and preservation of the natural environment. Jarovce river branch is part of the protected forests near the Danube. However, not all of the new boathouses are owned or occupied by enthusiasts of nature, just the opposite. Damage caused by newcomers in the protected area are estimated by the State Nature Conservation Offi ce to be 437,713 EUR. These damages were caused by cutt ing out of protected trees, shrubs or other vegetation in order to make easy access to the river. Illegally modifi ed river banks, construction of summer shelters or other permanent structures, building access roads for cars led to a fundamental change in the character of the conservation area. None of these structures built on the river bank met the criteria set by legislation and the city LUP. They were built arbitrarily without planning or acquiring building permission. Moreover, the absence of defi ning a boathouse in the law as property guarantees the owners’ exemption from tax (property tax), at the same time owners enjoy sewage, and water supply free of charge. Therefore, newcomers do not normally ask permit from the Building Authority, but only mooring permission from the Traffi c Department (former State Navigation Administration). The inherited, infl exible but still valid Building Act from 1976 is con- stantly criticised especially for the easy legalisation of illegal constructions. Demolition of illegal buildings has hardly occurred. The main obstacle to the clearance of illegal constructions is the unknown ownership of the property. Illegal colonisation of water In Jarovce river branch the power ambitions of boathouse owners in the form of privatisation of public spaces can clearly be observed. State-owned river banks in the administration of the Slovak Water Management Enterprise have been gradually annexed to boathouses through the symbolic enclosure of front gardens (Photo 3). Privatization of the public area through barriers and ramps built by boathouse´s owners and preventing access to boathouses is also wide- spread (Photo 4). This process can be described as the colonisation of the Jarovce 347 Photo 3. Luxurious boathouse in the Jarovce arm of the Danube. Source: www.cas.sk Photo 4. Privately built gate preventing access on the path. Source: www.pluska.sk 348 river branch by a small group of people who occupied this valuable territory. Unregulated, linear development of private boathouses can prevent easy and free access to the Danube´s banks which can be considered as a public asset. Some of the owners of boathouses highlighted the fact, that newcom- ers are advised by their friends, owners of old boathouses, how to privatise their surroundings. Among the newcomers and owners of new boathouses infl uential people with high public positions can be found such as: members of parliament, ministers, and mayors. Consequently, we can summarise that the illegal privatisation of public land has been initiated by a relatively small group of affl uent people and their eff ort to obtain control over the Jarovce river branch can be understood as the uncontrolled creation of a semi-gated community on water. The role of public institutions From an institutional point of view the urbanisation of water surfaces in Brati- slava shows not only weak coordination between diff erent hierarchy levels of public administration (i.e. lack of real multilevel governance), but also a low rate of cooperation among public institutions of the same level. Despite the pressure from the public and the media, the mushrooming of boathouses near the Danube continued. However, the mentioned pressure and negative publicity set into motion two public institutions for action: the Slovak Water Management Enterprise and the Water Construction Enterprise. Until 2013, the illegal devel- opment in the Jarovce river branch had been tolerated by public authorities. As a symbol of scandalous practices refl ecting the gap between private and public interests practices of the Ministry of Environment in the period 2006–2009 can be mentioned, when publically owned fl ood land was rented to a private company for 99 years. In spite of the fact that the contract was later can- celled by the prosecutor, such agreement would have given enormous power to a private developer and control over the access to the Jarovce river branch. Future tenants would have needed the permission of the company for obtaining a place in Jarovce river branch. Only recently have authorities started to act in order to clear at least the infamous constructions built on the river bank. Conclusions In this paper we demonstrate the uneven struggle for access to water in post-social- ist Bratislava. We focuse on locations which are essential parts of the waterfront transformation story. The ongoing waterfront transformation in Bratislava confi rms the confl icting nature of highly exposed localities and refl ects the contradictory 349 interests of various stakeholders. The current use of waterfronts is characterised by asymmetric power relations among the main actors of urban development. The unevenness in access to water is shown on two localities with sharply contrasting character of transformation. The fi rst case, Karlova Ves cove, is an environmentally highly valuable area with a historical relation to water and water sports, which is guaranteed by the LUP of the city and also by the relatively large community of citizens. However, the course of trans- formation shows the weak position of water-enthusiasts and citizens who struggle for the access to the Danube and future use of this area. The driving force behind this process is the endeavour of a private investor to maximise the exchange value of the land under the existing legislative and spatial planning environment of a rapidly transforming post-socialist city. The second case shows the robust transformation of an environmen- tally very valuable area, the Jarovce river branch, where the invasion of a small group of affl uent newcomers and the illegal privatisation of public land can be observed. The ‘wild urbanisation’ of Jarovce river branch and the endeavour of newcomers to privatise public property is accompanied by the development of an illegal semi-gated community on the river bank. Both case studies raise two important concerns related to asymmetric power relations in post-socialist urban space, namely the role of spatial plan- ning and legislation in urban development and the att itude of public institu- tions in post-socialist urban development. Firstly, the mechanism of spatial planning is still from the time of com- munism and it is a very exclusive matt er. The planning process of the city or city districts as well as the interpretation of LUP is very technocratic, rigid and has hardly any connection with the wider public. The spatial planning process is the domain of a relatively small group of experts who are planning for the citizens, without them. This persisting system increases its inclination to strong individual interests. Secondly, the widening possibilities of private investors were shown to control the future development of an area through spatial planning documentation. The authors of planning documents are oft en private companies whose intention to protect public interest, consider wider relations as well as prefer functions with high use value are very limited. Lastly, our criticism also goes to the land based character of spatial planning process in general by which we follow Pinch, P. and Munt, I. (2002). Functions primarily dependent on water are not recognised at all and are misrepresented by land based codes. Planning, therefore, does not integrate river into the wider urban environment. This plan- ning can result in the degradation of the importance of the river for the city. The second group of problems we want to underline here is the be- haviour of public institutions in the process of urban development. We came to similar conclusions as Feldman, M. (2000), who showed the fragile status of the municipality in relation to its fi scal, political and organisational status 350 as well as the whole institutional fragmentation and absence of cooperation among public stakeholders. Additionally, we want to highlight a signifi cant diff erence between the de facto and de jure position of post-socialist institutions in Bratislava. Whereas the position of public authorities is de jure relatively strong and they are equipped with robust regulatory tools, these tools are, however, de facto not used eff ectively, or misused through technocratic and non-participatory procedures. As the Jarovce river branch case showed there are signifi cant limits in coordination and multilevel-governance among diff er- ent public institutions. In conclusion we want to make some possible normative suggestions. Besides the solutions to our above mentioned criticism, we believe that the con- cept of locally embedded leadership in the highly organised network of stake- holders (regardless their hierarchical position) is the key to improvement. This might be initiated not exclusively from the public sector; however, the role of entrepreneurial public institutions is essential in the fi ght against social, spatial and environmental injustices in urban development of post-socialist cities. Acknowledgements: This paper was supported by the Grant Agency of the Charles University No. 852513 “Whose waterfront regeneration?” 351 REFERENCES Breen, A. and Rigby, D. 1994. Urban Waterfronts: Cities Reclaim Their Edge. New York, McGraw- Hill. Brottomesso, R. 1993. Waterfronts: A new frontier for cities on water. Venice, International Centre for Cities on Water. Buček, J. 2006. Post-socialist urban development, planning and participation – The case study of Bratislava City Centre. In Social changes and social sustainability in historical urban centres – The case of Central Europe. Eds. Enyedi,G. and Kovács, Z., Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Discussion Papers Special, 65–80. Castells, M. 1996. The rise of the network society. Oxford, eBlackwell Publishers. Cook, A. 2010. The Expatriate Real Estate Complex: Creative Destruction and the Production of Luxury in Post-Socialist Prague. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34. (3): 611–628. Coiacetto, E., 2007. The Role of the Development Industry in Shaping Urban Social Space: a Conceptual Model. Geographical Research 45. (4): 340–347. Desfor, G., Laidley, J., Stevens, Q. and Schubert, D. eds. 2011. Transforming Urban Waterfronts, Fixity and Flow. New York, Routledge. Doucet, B., Kempen, R. and Van Weesep, J. 2010. Resident perceptions of fl agship waterfront regeneration. the case of the Kop van Zuid in Rott errdam. Tij dschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografi e 102. (2): 125–145. Feldmann, M. 2000. Urban Waterfront Regeneration and Local Gouvernance in Tallinn. Europe- Asia Studies 52. (5): 829–850. Gordon, D.L.A. 1996. Planning, design and managing change in urban waterfront redevelop- ment. Town Planning Review 67. (3): 261–290. Gordon, D.L.A. 1997. Managing changing political environments in urban waterfront develop- ment. Urban Studies 34. (1): 63–83. Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford, Blackwell. Harvey, D. 2014. Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism. London, Profi le books Ltd. Hoyle, B.S., Pinder, D.A. and Husain, M.S. 1988. Revitalising the Waterfront: International Dimensions of Docklands Development. London, Belhaven Press. Hoyle, B. 2000. Global and Local Change on the Port-City Waterfront. Geographical Review 90. (3): 395–417. Ilík, J. and Ouředníček, O. 2007. Karlín a jeho promněny v souvislostech postsocialistické transformace Prahy. Geografi e 112. (3): 292–314. Imrie, R.; Lees, L. and Raco M. eds. 2009. Regenerating London: Governance, Sustainability and Community in a Global City. London, Routledge. Kiss, É. 2007. The evolution of industrial areas in Budapest aft er 1989. In The post-socialist city. Urban form a space transformations in central and eastern Europe aft er socialism. Ed. Stanilov, K. Dordrecht, Springer, 147–170. Malone, P. ed. 1997. City, Capital and Water. London, Routledge. Marcuse, P. and Van Kempen, R. eds. 2000. Globalizing Cities. A New Spatial Order? Oxford, Blackwell. Marshall, R. ed. 2001. Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities. London, Spon Press. Nedović-Budić, Z. 2001. Adjustment of Planning Practice to the New Eastern and Central European Context. Journal of the American Planning Association 67. (1): 38–50. Pinder, D. A. and Hoyle, B.S. 1992. Urban waterfront management: historical patt erns and prospects. In Ocean Management in Global Change. Ed. Fabbri, P. London and New York, Elsevier. 493–516. 352 Pinch, P. and Munt, I. 2002. Blue Belts: An Agenda for ‘Waterspace’ Planning in the UK. Planning Practice and Research 17. (2): 159–174. Scharenberg, A. and Bader, I. 2009. Berlin’s waterfront site struggle. City 13. (2–3): 325–335. Short, J.R., Benton, L.M., Luce, W.B. and Walton, J. 1993. Reconstructing the image of the industrial city. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 83. (2): 207–224. Stanilov, K. ed. 2007. The post-socialist city: urban form and space transformations in Central and Eastern Europe aft er socialism. Dordrecht, Springer. 495 p. Sýkora, L. 2001. Proměny prostorové struktury Prahy v kontextu postkomunistické trans- formace. In Regionální vývoj: specifi ka české transformace, evropská integrace a obecná teorie. Ed. Hampl, M. Praha, 127–166. Sýkora, L. 2007. Offi ce development and post-communist city formation. In The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe aft er Socialism. Ed. Stanilov, K. Dordrecht, Springer. 117–145. Sýkora, L. 2008. Revolutionary change, evolutionary adaptation and new path dependen- cies: socialism, capitalism and transformations in urban spatial organizations. In City and Region. Papers in Honour of Jiří Musil. Eds. Strubelt, W. and Gorzelak, G., Leverkusen-Opladen, Budrich UniPress. 283–295. Sýkora, L. and Bouzarovski, S. 2012. Multiple Transformations: Conceptualising the Post- communist Urban Transition. Urban Studies 49. (1): 43–60. Swyngedouw, E. 2004. Social power and the urbanization of water. Flows of power. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Temelová, J. 2009. Urban revitalization in central and inner parts of (post-socialist) cities: conditions and consequences. In Regenerating Urban Core. Ed. Ilmavirta, T., Helsinki, Helsinki University of Technology, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, 12–25. << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV (Za stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /ITA /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) /HUN >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice