www.eurocities.eu

EUROCIT IES i s the net work of major European c i t ies . Founded in 1986 , the net work br ings together the loca l governments of over 130 la rge c i t ies in some 34 European countr ies . EUROCIT IES represents the interests of i t s members and engages in d ia logue with the European inst i tut ions across a wide range of pol ic y areas a f fec t ing c i t ies . These inc lude : economic development , the envi ronment , t ranspor t and mobi l i t y, soc ia l a f fa i r s , cu l ture , the in format ion and k nowledge soc iet y, and ser v ices of genera l interest .

This brochure was produced in November 2008

August 2008

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology

Permosertrass 15

04318 Leipzig, Germany

http://www.ufz.de

PD Dr. Sigrun Kabisch sigrun.kabisch@ufz.de

Dr. Annett Steinführer

Dr. Annegret Haase

Dr. Katrin Großmann

Dipl.-Geogr. Andreas Peter

Dipl.-Geogr. Andreas Maas

DemogrAphic chAnge & housing in europeAn cities

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

8

9

10

11

12 13 14

15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68

69

70 71 72 73 74 75 76

77

78 79

80

81 82

Cont

ents

0_pr

efac

e

4.1_

Prof

iles

of fi

ve c

ities

_Lei

pzig

4.2_

Prof

iles

of fi

ve c

ities

_Brn

o

4.3_

Prof

iles

of fi

ve c

ities

_Łód

ź

1_O

ngoi

ng d

emog

raph

ic c

hang

e –

new

tren

ds a

nd c

halle

nges

2_D

emog

raph

ic c

hang

e an

d re

sulti

ng h

ousi

ng d

eman

d –

quan

titat

ive

and

qual

itativ

e in

vest

igat

ions

3_M

etho

dolo

gica

l app

roac

h

7

.1_A

dden

dum

_Met

hodo

logi

cal r

emar

ks

7

.2_A

dden

dum

_Diff

eren

t def

initi

ons

of “

hous

ehol

d”

7

.3_A

dden

dum

_Tab

les

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

8

9

10

11

12 13 14

15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68

69

70 71 72 73 74 75 76

77

78 79

80

81 82

6.1_

Refe

renc

es

6.2_

Web

site

s

4.4_

Prof

iles

of fi

ve c

ities

_Bol

ogna

4.5_

Prof

iles

of fi

ve c

ities

_Liv

erpo

ol

5_Co

mpa

rison

s, co

nclu

sion

s an

d re

com

men

datio

ns

84

83

85

86

87

88

89 90 91 92 93 94

6 7

0_Preface

This report provides a detailed examination of the fundamental changes occurring in urban demographics and their

interconnection with housing. In Chapter 1, the new demographic trends and challenges are elaborated. Chapter 2 explains their

impact on the housing sector, and the need for both quantitative and qualitative research. This chapter also highlights cross-

European processes and specific local trends, taking information from the five major European cities of Leipzig, Brno, Łódź,

Bologna and Liverpool. These cities are all members of the EUROCITIES network.

The analyses in this report are based on a set of indicators which is introduced in

Chapter 3, together with the methodological approach. Questions of data availability and

comparability are also considered. Chapter 4 looks in more detail at the five cities in terms

of demographics and housing. The research findings are supplemented by information on

local municipal projects that are designed to deal with the challenges for housing that have

been caused by demographic change.

A comparative summary, conclusions and recommendations are given in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 provides a comprehensive list of

references, which include European studies as well as reports from the individual cities under investigation. Finally, in Chapter 7,

the Addendum discusses certain aspects of the methodology.

Throughout the report, a number of graphs, tables and photos are included, as well as

information boxes (“info-boxes”), highlighting specific characteristics or interesting local

projects.

European cities face great challenges in terms of demographic change and its consequences. Demographic

changes are either already affecting European cities, or are likely to affect them in the near future, in terms of

the urban infrastructure, the social composition of the population, and the demand for services and amenities.

Demographic change also needs to be considered in terms of its impact on housing: in particular, to ensure

appropriate housing supply and adequate housing conditions for a variety of different social groups. To tackle this

task, cities need to have a sound knowledge of the ongoing demographic changes in their urban populations and

the relevance for housing and the housing market.

The fundamental characteristics of demography are universal: fertility, mortality and migration.

In very general terms, the population of a city can either increase or decrease and can tend to

rejuvenate or to age. While population growth was for a long time a major driver for urbanisation,

many European cities now face population decline (‘shrinkage’). If fertility rates are lower than

mortality rates and migration does not fill the gap, shrinkage will occur. Only cities with a positive

net migration balance and a strong economic base are currently facing ongoing population

growth.

In terms of fertility, birth rates have been declining across Europe for decades. In many European countries, fertility

is currently well below the so-called replacement level (about 2.1 children per female). In some European

countries, fertility is showing historically low values. This phenomenon, which is found in Eastern and Southern

Europe in particular, is referred to by demographers as “lowest-low fertility” (Kohler et al. 2002).

Recent analyses by the European Commission (2006) indicate a present Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of 1.5 children per woman for the

EU-25. Only a limited increase to 1.6 children per woman is projected for these countries by 2030. Some demographers express

doubt even about this slight increase, and expect the very low fertility rate to continue.

In terms of life-expectancy, a decrease in the mortality rate in Europe, caused by better living conditions and

improved health services, is predicted to raise life expectancy by at least five years from the current level, by 2050.

Current life expectancy for European men is 75.7 years now and is projected to rise to 80.5 years by 2050; the

figures for women are 80.4 years currently, rising to 85.6 by 2050 (EC 2006).

While the trends in absolute population numbers vary throughout Europe, a further

significant demographic development in European cities is ageing. Its main causes

are declining fertility rates and increased life expectancy. Ageing is the most out-

standing feature of Europe’s demography: it affects all European regions and most

of its major cities (EUROCITIES 2007, NiDi 2008). The current median age in Europe is

37.7 years, compared to a global median age of 26.4 years (CoE 2005, 13).

1_Ongoing demographic change - new trends and challenges

8 9

Facing both population decline and ageing, urban decision-makers need new strategies in urban

planning, such as innovative housing market instruments, and a new awareness of both growth

and shrinkage as acceptable urban development pathways. To mention just a few of the main

challenges: population decrease causes contradictory housing market conditions, such as lower

prices on the one hand, and vacant housing (over-supply) and decay on the other. Ageing often

creates an imbalance between available housing supply and the actual housing and services

required in residential areas. Furthermore, older people do not form a homogeneous group: there is

a variety of different life styles, social strata, states of health etc. among them.

Within this picture, the new phenomenon of rising numbers of inhabitants aged 80+ has to be considered. ‘Ageing in place’

(Gober 1990, 243), i.e. a decreasing residential mobility in the course of life, but also selective mobility, can lead to particular

demographic landscapes in cities. In addition, decreasing population numbers, and a new imbalance in age structures, leads to

reduced population densities in terms of housing usage, and also reduced and changed demand for services. Yet, in spite of this,

urban amenities and infrastructure still need to be maintained. This causes rising costs and rising charges, which also affect how

satisfied people are with their housing.

These trends are accompanied by a further socio-demographic process that must be mentioned

in the context of housing: the rising number of households, and their changing structure, despite

the fact that in many places the population is shrinking. The increase in the number of households

together with changing household compositions needs intensive consideration in both quantitative

and qualitative terms, and is discussed in more detail below.

In order to achieve a better insight into the picture at local level, and to evaluate the consequences of the interrelated

demographic processes mentioned in the previous chapter, it is necessary to specify the indicators and drivers within the field of

housing. In our view, because it is households rather than individuals that are the main actors on housing markets, a household

perspective is indispensable. It is households that decide where to live, in what conditions, and whether to stay or to leave a

certain location. Our research demonstrates that the far-reaching changes in household structures are an important, and so far

under-researched, dimension of urban housing (Buzar et al. 2007b). Of particular importance is the increase in smaller, less stable

households, and in one-person households of both younger and older people.

For this report, we define a household as a living arrangement which can consist either of one

person living alone, or of several people living together and sharing a significant proportion of their

living costs. This definition, which is based on the official German definition of a household, serves

as a basis for our comparisons, even though some European countries use different definitions of a

household (Housing Statistics in the EU 2004, 97-100 and Addendum in Chapter 7).

In many European regions, we have been observing a diversification of household types and the growing

importance of non-traditional living arrangements: for example, one-person households, childless couples,

one-parent households, patchwork families, and flat sharing. The main trends are, firstly, significantly smaller

household sizes, and secondly, less stable household arrangements, as individuals shift from one living

arrangement to another several times during the course of their lives (for an overview: Buzar et al. 2005).

These changes, which demographers refer to as the “Second Demographic Transition” (van de Kaa 1987 and 2004),

need to be considered because of their importance both for housing markets and for general urban development

(Ogden, Hall 2004). Changing household structures should be seen in the light of new emerging lifestyles and also

women’s participation in the workforce: these new ways of life help to generate new housing aspirations e. g. the

possibility of avoiding suburban life and also of rediscovering the advantages of inner-city housing.

The formation of new household types overlaps with ageing. The desire of older people to continue to live in their

own dwelling (and not in a residential care home) means that dwellings need to be in good physical condition with

the right facilities and without barriers to living at home e. g. with step-free access, non-slip treads, and suitable

bath equipment. Self-determined living may be achieved either by living alone or sharing a dwelling. A decisive

point for housing policies is that older inhabitants, who no longer take part in the labour market, spend more time

at home: their housing and service needs are therefore very different from those of the population of working

age.

2_Demographic change and resulting housing demand - quantitative and qualitative investigations

10 11

An additional observation is that cities, and especially inner cities, lead

the way in changing household compositions. The share of one-person

households is highest in the larger cities, and it is even higher in the inner

cities. Other non-traditional household types, such as cohabitation, same-

sex unions and flat sharing, are also spreading faster in the cities than

elsewhere. This diversification of living and housing arrangements transforms

the affected neighbourhoods (Buzar et al. 2007b, Steinführer, Haase 2008).

In line with these changes, urban experts have recently started referring to

reurbanisation again, in discussing the relationships between demographic,

residential and urban changes, and also the new attractiveness of the inner

cities across Europe (Haase, A. et al. 2005 and 2006).

In this report, our aim is to analyse the present demographic situation in five European cities and point out the challenges as well

as the concrete tasks for housing. In contrast with the EUROCITIES Demographic Change Survey 2007 (EUROCITIES 2007), this

report focuses in particular on city-specific demographic changes and their impact on local housing markets.

In this report, we include the following cities as case studies:

1_ Leipzig (Germany)

2_ Brno (Czech Republic)

3_ Łódź (Poland)

4_ Bologna (Italy)

5_ Liverpool (U.K.)

We decided to analyse large, so-called ‘second-order’ cities (i.e. no capital cities), in five

European countries. This decision was taken because of the importance of these ‘second-

order’ cities in terms of the future economic and social development of urban Europe.

Furthermore, these cities often receive insufficient attention on the political and scientific

agendas, in comparison with the capital cities.

In terms of their geographical coverage, the cities are located in Central Europe (Leipzig), East Central Europe (Łódź

and Brno), Western Europe (Liverpool) and Southern Europe (Bologna). Three of the cities have been experiencing

the challenges of transition from state socialism to a market-orientated political and economic system (Leipzig,

Brno and Łódź). But despite their specific contexts, all five cities face the consequences of demographic change in

general, and its impact on the field of housing in particular.

Being aware of the risks, limitations and problems of cross-national comparisons,

it has been essential to use a common set of key indicators for the analyses. They

describe the most important factors, and provide the basis for comprehensive

interpretation and cross-local conclusions.

Three conditions need to be fulfilled in selecting such indicators. Firstly, the set of indicators

should be flexible enough to respond to the various needs of stakeholders, and of results-based

management strategies, at different levels of urban local government. Secondly, the indicators

need to be appropriate for evaluating the performance, thresholds and trade-offs of any municipal

policies. Thirdly, they should not only describe the current situation, but should also be able to

integrate past and future changing dynamics (Haase, D. et al. 2008). Given this background, a set

of key indicators was selected, as shown in the following table, to describe local demography and

housing as well as their interdependencies (Fig. 3.1).

3_Methodological approach

12 13

Figure 3.1_Key indicator set for demographic change and its impact on housing

Indicators of total population development

> Population development in a long-term perspective (2nd half of the 20th century)

> Population development in a short-term perspective (2000-2006/2007)

> Population projections (until 2020/2030)

Indicators of natural population development and migration

> Fertility and mortality

> In- and out-migration (= local, regional and national scales)

> Immigration and emigration (= international scale)

> Population density

> Importance of ethnic minorities/foreign population

Ageing indicators

> Share of population aged: 0-14, 15-64, 65+

> Number of persons aged: 65-79, 80+, total 65+

> Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64; = ratio of children to 100 persons of working age)

> Age dependency rate (65+/15-64; = ratio of older people to 100 persons of working age)

> Index of ageing (65+/0-14; = ratio of older people to 100 children)

> Life expectancy at birth

> Average age

Household indicators

> Total resident population

> Total number of households

> Total number of one-person households

> Share of one-person households

> Average household size

Housing indicators

> Total housing stock

> Housing vacancy

> Living space per inhabitant in m²

> Age and tenure structure of the housing stock

These key indicators are complemented by data and empirical findings from other sources, such as the Urban Audit,

local questionnaire surveys, and interviews where available. We have also used information gathered by cross-national

investigations to illustrate specific issues, while also being aware of the methodological challenges related to cross-

national and cross-local investigations (Kabisch 2005, Steinführer et al. 2008).

Some general methodological points need to be stressed:

•Inmanycases, theavailablepopulation,householdandhousingmarketdataarebasedoncensus

updates; however, in the past, censuses in Europe were carried out at different times. In addition,

recent census data do not exist for Germany.

•Changesoccurringoutside theadministrativeboundariesofeachcityhavebeenas faraspossible

included, most importantly in the suburban zones; however, respective information is often either

lacking or not comparable. Moreover, the data on urban-rural migration does not differentiate

between urban-suburban migration and real urban-rural migration. Thus, suburbanisation trends are

not always detectable from the statistics used.

•Dataconcerningmigrationonthelocal,regionalandnationalscales(i.e.in-andout-migration)aswell

as on the international scale (i.e. immigration and emigration) have to be interpreted with caution

due to incomplete representation within official statistics. Those persons who do not register as in or

out-migrants are not in the statistics. This is true in most European countries, but most strikingly in

Eastern Europe and in particular in Poland, where labour-related emigration increased rapidly after

2004 when the country became a full member of the European Union.

•The existence of different definitions and data categorisations hampers the comparison between

cities. This relates in particular to some key indicators as follows:

- household: see Addendum;

- age groups: there is inappropriate differentiation, and also too few age bands or varying age

bands;

- migration: there is not always a clear differentiation between in-/out-migration on the local,

regional and national scale, and immigration/emigration on the international scale;

- rates of housing vacancy: there are different calculation bases and different definitions of vacant

dwellings.

•For cross-European comparisons, the Urban Audit is often used, but the data sources for the

Urban Audit are not usually provided. Thus it remains unclear to what extent the data are really

comparable.

•Since statistics sometimes hide more than they reveal, there is a strong need for mixed-method

approaches. Quantitative methods have to be combined with qualitative approaches to achieve a

deeper understanding of the ongoing processes.

•Toobtainmoreinsightsintothedynamicsofdemographicchangeanditsconsequences,repeated

investigations and particularly long-term studies are indispensable.

The findings presented in this report are, in part, based on the EU FP5 research project Re Urban Mobil (www.re-urban.com;

duration 2002–2005). We also used information and research results from the ongoing research initiative “Socio-spatial

consequences of demographic change for East Central European cities” (www.condense-project.org, duration: 2006-2009,

funded by the German Volkswagen foundation). Further information and data was collected in consultation with the

municipalities and from their websites. It has to be stressed that the research on each city was embedded in different projects.

Therefore, the volume and depth of knowledge about each of the five cities differ.

14 15

A final source for evaluating our research approach and findings was the international

conference “Socio-demographic change of European cities and its spatial consequences” which

was held in April 2008 in Leipzig. Participants from 14 European countries took part in this

conference (Großmann et al. 2008).

Table 3.1 provides an initial overview of selected demographic and housing features of the five studied cities for 2006.

Table 3.1_General features of the investigated cities, 2006 (short version)*

Leipzig Brno Łódź Bologna Liverpool

POPULATION

Total population 506,600 (31/12) 366,384 (01/07) 760,251 (31/12) 373,026 (31/12) 436,100 (30/06)

Average age in years 43.9 41.8 42.7 47.7 not available

Average household size 1.7 not available 2.20 1.9 not available

Total number of households 298,700 not available not available 193,555 not available

Share of one-person households 52.2 not available 22.6 not available not available

Life expectancy in years 79.25 73.95 72.25 not available not available

HOUSING

Dwellings 315,000 165,366 332,692 not available 209,344

Vacancy rate 12.7 not available not available not available 7.1

(share of empty dwellings)

* The enlarged table for 2006 with additional indicators and the table for 2001 with the same features for comparison (including all references) are provided in the Addendum (i.e. Chapter 7).

Leipzig

Leipzig is a second-order city in eastern Germany, south-west of Berlin. It has some 500,000 inhabitants, and an

area of nearly 300 km². This is where, in October 1989, the “Peaceful Revolution” (Friedliche Revolution) started,

which initiated the fall of the Berlin Wall. For several weeks, tens of thousands of people demonstrated in the

streets of Leipzig city centre, demanding an end to state socialism. In October 1990, German reunification took

place.

In terms of its economy, Leipzig is a historical centre of commerce, and the Leipzig Fair is known

as the “mother of all trade fairs”. In recent years, the city has become an important centre for

the vehicle and automotive components industry (e.g. Porsche since 2002, BMW since 2005).

It has also developed to an international logistics node (it has been the European hub for

DHL since 2007). Leipzig also has a number of higher education and research institutes, and

currently attracts some 37,000 students. Its university is the second oldest in Germany, founded

in 1409. The city has a broad cultural heritage and hosts a number of festivals (e.g. Gewandhaus

Orchestra and the Bach or Wave Gothic Festival).

The urban appearance of Leipzig is strongly characterised by a Gründerzeit

architectural heritage of more than 12,000 residential buildings containing

110,000 dwellings (35% of the total housing stock). These ensembles date

from between 1870 and 1914: a period of economic prosperity known as the

Gründerzeit.

Demographic development

To understand the recent demographic trends in Leipzig and their

consequences for the housing market, it is necessary to consider three phases

in the city’s recent history: first, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989; second,

between 1990 and 2000; and third, 2001 to the present. The Fig. 4.1.1 below

gives an initial impression of the population trends in Leipzig since 1933.

Figure 4.1.1_Leipzig – population development 1933–2007

Source: Stadt Leipzig 2007a, 2008 (*after incorporation of suburban locations)

4_Profiles of five cities 4.1_Leipzig

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

713,500

1933

702,000

1939

584,500

1945

584,000

1970

617,500

1950

589,500

1960

562,500

1980

511,000

1990

471,500

1995

437,000

1998

493,000

2000*

506,500

2006

510,500

2007

Inha

bita

nts

16 17

Long-term shrinkage process in the second part of the 20th century

Before World War II, Leipzig was one of the five largest cities in Germany, with

more than 700,000 inhabitants. But as a result of World War II, the population

decreased by more than 100,000 people. After 1945, with the division of

Germany and Europe, Leipzig lost most of its former national and international

economic importance. In the 1950s particularly, mostly young, well-trained

people migrated to Western Germany. After 1961 and the construction of the

Berlin Wall, in-migration and out-migration were almost equal. Yet, between 1951

and 1989, Leipzig lost nearly 58,000 inhabitants through out-migration (32,800

people in 1989 and 1990 alone), and more than 48,000 through the natural

decline in population (more deaths than births). The 1990s were characterised

by a further dramatic loss of population: between 1990 and 1998, the population

declined by almost 100,000 people. There were three main reasons: firstly, the

radical fall in the birth rate after the reunification of Germany; secondly, the

high out-migration to western Germany, due to the poor economic situation in

eastern Germany, and, thirdly, suburbanisation (Fig. 4.1.2).

Figure 4.1.2_Leipzig – natural population development and migration balance 1991–2000

natural population development migration balance Source: Stadt Leipzig 2001a

In the first half of the 1990s, 20,000 more people died than were born. In 1995,

eastern Germany as a whole showed a total fertility rate of 0.77 children per

woman, which represented the world’s lowest value (Statistisches Bundesamt

2003). After the mid-1990s, the fertility rate rose in eastern Germany, and also

in Leipzig itself; by 2000, the number of live births per year in the city had

increased to 7.3 per 1,000 inhabitants. But by that time, a massive suburbanisation

process had begun. From 1996 to 1998 almost 30,000 people left the city of

Leipzig for the surrounding suburbia (Stadt Leipzig 2001a).

2,000

-3,000

-8,000

-13,000

19961991

-3,7

45

-4,1

43

1992

-3,7

93

-2,7

51

1993

-3,9

19 -2,4

84

1994

-3,7

26

-6,0

05 -3,5

80

-7,1

67

1995

-11,

228

-3,0

25

1997

-2,5

51

-9,9

83

1998

-1,9

98

-7,5

56

1999

-1,8

43

315

2000

-1,6

76

1,01

2

Inha

bita

nts

Leipzig

In the 1990s, the ethnic composition of the city’s population saw some

decisive changes. In 1989, at the fall of the Berlin Wall, almost 20,000 foreign

nationals (in the German understanding: Ausländer, “foreigners”) lived in the city,

mainly from developing countries such as Vietnam, Mozambique and Angola.

However, most of these foreigners had to leave Germany after reunification; and

in 1990, there were only 9,000 living in the city. But by the end of the 1990s, the

number of foreign nationals had risen again, to nearly 27,000 (5% of the entire

population): mainly from Vietnam, Ukraine, Russia, Poland and Iraq. In addition,

10,000 ethnic Germans (Spätaussiedler) moved into the city from Eastern Europe

(Stadt Leipzig 1991a, 2007b).

Due to the drop in the birth rate, as well as a selective out-migration (especially of younger people), ageing has

gained a special dynamic in Leipzig. Since 1990, the share of children under 15 years old has decreased from

some 17% of the population, to a current level of less than 10%. In the same period, the proportion of people

aged 65+ increased from 16% to nearly 22%. In terms of the ageing index, in 1990 there were 91 people aged

65+ per 100 children, but by 2006 this had already increased to 220 people aged 65+ per 100 children. In line

with these changes, the average age of the population increased from 40 years old to almost 44 years old

(Table 4.1.1).

Table 4.1.1_Leipzig – demographic indicators of ageing 1990-2006

1990 1995 2000 2006

Share of total population aged:

0-14 17.0 13.8 11.2 9.9

15-65 67.5 69.8 70.6 68.3

65+ 15.5 16.4 18.2 21.8

Number of persons aged:

65-79 57,600 55,500 68,300 85,200

80+ 21,900 21,500 21,300 25,100

Total 65+ 79,500 77,000 89,600 110,300

Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64) 25.2 19.8 15.9 14.6

Age dependency rate (65+/15-64) 23.0 23.5 25.7 31.9

Index of ageing (65+/0-14) 91.2 118.8 162.5 220.2

Average age 40.0 41.8 43.8 43.9

Sources: Stadt Leipzig 1991a, 1996a, 2001a, 2007a; Statistisches Landesamt des Freistaates Sachsen 2007

18 19

New direction of population development after 2001 – stabilisation and growth

Since the mid-1990s, the birth rate in Leipzig has been increasing, and a negative migration balance has

gradually turned into a positive one (Fig. 4.1.3). The city of Leipzig is growing mainly due to an influx of people

from other East German regions and from the areas surrounding the city (Herfert 2007). The universities and

other higher education institutions are a major factor attracting in-migrants. Between 2000/01 and 2006/07,

the number of students increased from 31,000 to 37,000. As noted above, this trend of positive net migration

has slowed down the ageing process, and the average age has stabilised at 44 years old (Table 4.1.1).

Figure 4.1.3_Leipzig – natural population development and migration balance 2001–2006

natural population development migration balance

Source: Stadt Leipzig 2007a, *data cleansing in the course of elections

The future – moderate population growth and ongoing ageing

According to demographic projections, there will be moderate po-

pulation growth until 2020. Different forecasts suggest the popula-

tion will increase to some 530,000 inhabitants (+5% in comparison

with 2006). But the demographic changes in the areas surrounding

Leipzig and in other regions (mainly ageing and population shrin-

kage), will lead to a decrease in the potential for in-migration. Thus

in the long-term, it is very unlikely that in-migration will be able to

compensate the deficit of births in Leipzig. In the medium-term, the

population of Leipzig will certainly decrease again. Yet, the number

of older people (80+) will grow massively: according to estimations,

the number of people aged 80+ will increase from 25,000 in 2006 to

44,000 in 2020 (which represents 8% of the total population; Stadt

Leipzig 2003b).

7.000

5.000

3.000

1.000

-1.000

-3.000

2001

-1.8

43

1.45

3

-1.2

18

5.35

3

2005

-912

1.84

3

2004*

-1.5

47

4.29

2

2003

-1.5

84

3.33

0

2002 2006

-1,0

12

4,93

9

Inha

bita

nts

Leipzig

Housing market – from shortage to vacancy

In contrast with the other four cities under investigation, the share of rental hou-

sing is extraordinarily high in Leipzig (about 86% of the entire housing stock;

Stadt Leipzig 2007e, 34). This specific feature did not even change in the course

of the post-socialist transition, as it did, for example, in Brno or in Łódź.

Until the early 1990s, the housing market in Leipzig was characterised by an extreme lack of

housing and by poor housing conditions, mainly with respect to the pre-1945 housing stock.

Until the 1990s, many dwellings from the Gründerzeit period had no bathroom and no separate

toilet. The residential environment was generally in a very poor state due to the prevalence of

coal fired heating.

Although some 40,000 new dwellings had been built between 1970 and 1990 (Table 4.1.2), the volume of

available housing was insufficient to meet the prevailing housing shortage. Increasing numbers of dwellings

were required, due to the rising number of households, the increasing demand for comfort, the reduction in

the size of households, and the dilapidated state of the old housing stock. At the end of the 1980s, some 25,000

to 30,000 dwellings were uninhabitable.

Table 4.1.2_Leipzig – indicators of the housing market 1971-2006

1971* 1981* 1990 1995* 1998 2000 2006

Total resident population 580,700 562,300 530,000 471,400 437,000 493,200 506,600

Total number of dwellings 216,600 240,600 258,000 268,200 282,200 315,700 315,000

Total number of households 244,500 237,300 248,500 231,700 227,900 264,100 298,700

Total number of

one-person households 78,400 74,500 97,800 86,200 88,500 112,200 156,000

Share of one-person

house-holds (%) 32.1 31.4 39.4 37.2 38.9 42.5 52.2

Average household size 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.6

Living space

per inhabitant in m² 23.1 27.3 31.8 36.7 41.4 41.7 41.2

Sources: Stadt Leipzig 1991a, 1996a, 2007a; *housing market data from census

20 21

This situation changed significantly after 1990. Supported by massive state-aid incentives, tens

of thousands of old buildings were renovated and new dwellings were built. In 2000, 14% of all

dwellings in Leipzig (i.e. 43,000 dwellings) were less than 10 years old. At the same time, around

75% of the old housing stock had been renovated. However, as the size of the population and,

more importantly, the number of households decreased between 1995 and 1998 (Table 4.1.2), a

new gap between supply and demand arose. This resulted in large housing vacancies (Kabisch

2005). In 2000, the number of unoccupied dwellings was estimated at about 60,000 (20% of the

entire housing stock; Table 4.1.3).

The incidence of vacant properties was uneven across the city and across housing market segments.

Increasingly, those parts of the city with buildings of only a basic structure and in a poor location, especially

on main roads, were affected by vacancy rates of up to 50% (Stadt Leipzig 2001c).

Since 2001, the number of households has risen with the increase in population. The

significant increase in one-person households (Table 4.1.2 above) has partly been

caused by the growing number of young people in Leipzig (mainly students and young

professionals). In terms of the housing market, it is worth noting that not all of them

actually live alone: among the younger age groups, flat sharing with several others is

very common (Steinführer, Haase 2008). The statistics show that by 2006, there were

some 65,000 one-person households in the under-35 age group, compared with only

35,000 in the year 2000.

In contrast with the increasing number of households, the number of

dwellings declined between 2002 and 2006, due to the demolition of

vacant buildings (Table 4.1.3). This demolition work is part of the state-

funded programme “Urban restructuring East” (Stadtumbau Ost),

implemented from 2002 to 2009.

Table 4.1.3_Leipzig – indicators of the housing market and vacancies by period of construction

Dwellings, by period Total number Vacancy by Vacancy by

of construction of dwellings 31/12/2002* 31/12/2006*

31/12/2002 31/12/2006 Total Share Total Share

Before 1918 111,958 110,296 27,000 24% 17,000 15%

1919-1948 58,042 56,876 11,000 19% 10,000 18%

1949-1990 100,228 96,804 15,000 15% 11,500 12%

After 1990 46,535 50,997 2,000 4% 1,500 3%

Total 316,763 314,973 55,000 17% 40,000 13%

Source: Stadt Leipzig 2007c; * all these numbers are estimations

Leipzig

As a result also of the high residential mobility in the city in the 1990s, socio-spatial

differentiation has increased. Areas characterised by population growth and rejuvenation are

mainly situated in the inner city. Shrinking and ageing areas are located in the outskirts and in

former working-class neighbourhoods.

Overall, the housing market of Leipzig is characterized by high levels of vacancies, moderate

rents and a relatively wide choice of housing standards and locations. In contrast with Liverpool,

for example, the general standard of housing in Leipzig is relatively high. Therefore, it is no

surprise that in the EU Urban Audit Perception Survey, Leipzig ranks first in terms of the

response to the question: ‘Is it easy to find good housing at a reasonable price?’ The survey also

found that 90% of the respondents were satisfied with living in Leipzig (EC 2007).

In the following sections we will look in more detail at some of the key consequences of

demographic change on housing in Leipzig. The focus is, firstly, on housing for older people,

and, secondly, on large housing estates.

Housing and quality of life for older people in housing surplus conditions:

new challenges

Older people in Leipzig represent an important target group for large housing

enterprises and for many private landlords. It is in their interest to provide

older people with conditions that guarantee a long tenancy, self-determination

and high quality of life in their homes. Housing providers increasingly recognise

their social responsibility and recently adjusted their services to reflect this e. g.

by organising care and support, establishing concierge services, or distributing

specific information for older people.

Attracting and retaining older people as a sought-after residential group, in order to reduce housing

vacancies, has become a major and sometimes controversial strategy (see info-box). A housing market with

surplus supply, and with a wide range of housing types, strengthens the position of consumers, including older

people. They have a better chance of fulfilling their housing needs than in a housing shortage.

But the advantages of a housing surplus, as described above, only represent one side of the coin. Large-

scale vacant housing also brings disadvantages. For older people, these disadvantages are connected with

significant changes in their daily life: long-term neighbours leave the area, social networks thin out, and vacant

buildings deteriorate or become subject to vandalism. The high mobility of the younger generation reduces

intra-generational contacts, with fewer opportunities for mutual support or to exchange experiences. The out-

migration of relatives and friends leads to the erosion of neighbourhood relationships. Family-based support

loses its importance because of the growing number of childless older people. In addition, many residents are

forced to leave their dwellings against their will, because the building they live in is planned for demolition.

Consequently, they lose their familiar surroundings, have to look for an appropriate alternative and must then

accustom themselves to new surroundings.

22 23

Info-box: Advertising campaign

“Leipzig – against deprivation in old age”

(Leipzig - Gegen Mangel im Alter)

This campaign was organised by the municipal housing enterprise LWB in

2007. It focused on the specific housing demands of older people and the

diverse and mainly well-restored housing stock in Leipzig. Older people

living in several West German regions were invited to visit Leipzig, to check

the living and housing conditions, with cheap bus travel, information events

and apartment viewings. The advertising campaign highlighted the variety

of existing dwellings available, the attractive financial packages, the relevant

housing services and the wide range of medical care and cultural amenities.

www.lwb.de, last access 14/08/2008

Therefore, new forms of communication are indispensable, together with community networks offering

reliable assistance. Self-help for older people is increasingly important in shrinking and ageing cities. In order

to support this self-help, it is necessary to strengthen the opportunities for mobility, self-responsibility and

activity for older residents. Nevertheless, the integration of young people is important too. There is a need for

more tolerance and respect for each other’s lifestyles between the generations.

In some neighbourhoods of Leipzig, and depending on the volume of housing

vacancies, modernisation and renovation is no longer subsidised. There is either no

public funding, or public funding is restricted, so there is nothing to prevent a decline

in the quality of life in these areas. Consequently, the municipality and the housing

organisations often decide to demolish housing blocks, and sometimes entire

neighbourhoods. For parts of Leipzig, there is a new phenomenon: “life-limited

neighbourhoods”, which are a characteristic of dramatically shrinking cities (Peter

2006, Kabisch, Peter 2008). A decisive feature of such neighbourhoods is the planning

decision to give up this area for residential or commercial use in the next years.

Remaining tenants are typically waiting to be re-housed because of the planned

demolition of their residential building. Noticeably, many of them tend to be older

people aged 65+, and or very old people aged 80+. Often they have been living in

the neighbourhood for decades and have strong sentiments towards their residential

environment. It is a major challenge for housing organisations and other local decision-

makers to find acceptable alternative living conditions for these people. This described

process can therefore take several months or even years, depending on the size of

the area and the complexity of the decision-making process. This urban development

challenge applies in particular to the large housing estates on the fringes of Leipzig.

Leipzig

Large housing estates facing socio-demographic change

While in 1990 about 20% of the entire population of Leipzig were living in large housing

estates, this proportion had decreased to about 10% by 2005. Nevertheless, today

about 50,000 people live in this type of residential area. The most important is Grünau,

located on the western edge of Leipzig. This neighbourhood was built between 1976

and 1989 for about 85,000 inhabitants, which was 17% of the whole population of

Leipzig at that time. The housing stock was very homogeneous and was restricted to

buildings constructed of large prefabricated concrete slabs (Plattenbauten). Since 1990,

the estate has been facing a huge loss of population (Table 4.1.4), as well as socially-

selective out- and in-migration. The consequences are significant vacant housing and

ongoing demolition.

The main causes of the significant decrease in population

in Grünau are, on the one hand, the same as for Leipzig in

general, i.e. labour-migration to western Germany, and sub-

urbanisation. On the other hand, the population decline is

also a result of the neighbourhood’s relatively young history.

During the 1980s, mainly young families moved into the

area: they were provided with a well-equipped apartment,

often for the first time in their lives. Thus they experienced

a real improvement in their housing situation. They valued

the relatively high standard of housing, and many of them

developed a strong attachment to the area. Over the past

20 years, many of these original inhabitants aged there, “in

place”. But from 1990 onwards, their children started leaving

the neighbourhood and, in many cases, also left Leipzig.

The estate therefore lost those young people who might

have become the area’s future parents. Therefore Grünau, in

comparison with other parts of Leipzig, is now an “older”

neighbourhood, and will continue to be so. Population

projections show that only 32,000 to 40,000 people will live

there by 2020, and they will mostly be older people (Table

4.1.4). By 2020, only some 20,000 apartments will be left, i.e.

10,000 less than today. As a result, entire areas of the estate

will no longer have any residential use. The sheer scale

of this process creates the phenomenon of “life-limited

neighbourhoods” as discussed above. But, although Grünau

will become smaller both in size and in population, it will

continue to exist in the foreseeable future.

24 25

Table 4.1.4_Leipzig-Grünau – indicators of the housing market 1990/2005 and projections for 2020

1990 2005 2020*

Total resident population 85,000 48,000 32,000-40,000

Total number of households 34,000 24,000 18,000-21,000

Total number of dwellings 34,000 31,000 20,000-23,000

Share of housing vacancy 0% 20% 10%

Source: Stadt Leipzig 2007d, *projection

Figure 4.1.4: Demolition of blocks in Leipzig-Grünau

Photo: A. Peter 2008

Grünau not only needs to adapt to its shrinkage but also to its ageing population. This

entails physical changes to the housing, to meet the needs of older people: for example,

buildings with elevators, dwellings without barriers to independent living, and

appropriate services available nearby are necessary. Such measures need not be area-

wide, and they need not be costly. Very often, it is the small measures that are helpful.

This means that the strict high standards currently imposed for housing for older

people, which are often identical to the standards imposed on housing for disabled

people, needs to be rethought. Thus, it is not reasonable to expect all buildings to be

modified: it is predicted that the majority of residents will be physically and mentally

active to an older age than has been the case in the past.

The expectations of older people, in terms of what constitutes good housing conditions, are the same as those

of the younger generation. However, major refurbishment, not only in terms of accessibility for older or disabled

people, but also in terms of modernisation, is not viable in Grünau because of the limited resources of both

the housing organisations and the residents. Many landlords suffer from high vacancy rates and therefore have

limited financial resources. Refurbishing the apartments is only affordable if long-term use can be guaranteed,

but of course such a guarantee cannot be given. This situation affects the residents: their tenancies are

insecure, and they face rising costs. They want to stay in their existing dwellings, in familiar surroundings, and

continue to pay rent at the current level. But due to the increase in vacant housing, social networks diminish,

and the continued existence of their homes becomes unclear. In addition, both relocation and high-cost

refurbishment means rising housing costs.

Leipzig

How does the City of Leipzig deal with demographic changes in the field of housing?1

The City of Leipzig pursues an integrated urban development strategy. This includes measures and projects

designed to stabilise the social balance of the city’s neighbourhoods. The aim is to discourage out-migration and

to promote the social and economic wellbeing of all groups of inhabitants. The key local target areas are the former

working-class neighbourhoods in the eastern and western parts of Leipzig (the “Soziale Stadt” and “URBAN II”

programmes, respectively), and also the large Grünau housing estate (the “Soziale Stadt” programme).

Specific measures have been developed for the urban renewal districts, the redevel-

opment areas, and the conservation of the city’s historic architecture, including its

monuments and listed buildings.

These specific measures include the following:

- the Selbstnutzerprogramm: to provide cheap residential property in the city

to specific target groups of owner-occupiers: young families and older people

(50+),

- the renovation of kindergartens and schools: to ensure high quality childcare

and education, especially in deprived neighbourhoods,

- diverse measures: to upgrade the residential environment and improve public

space and buildings for all age groups.

A specific example is the Wächterhäuser scheme. Wächterhäuser literally means

‘houses with a guard/guardian’. This scheme is an initiative of the HausHalten

association, founded in 2004, and is supported by the City of Leipzig. The goal

of the Association is to preserve endangered buildings and to find new uses for

these buildings on a non-commercial basis. The background to the initiative is the

concentration of listed but vacant buildings from the Gründerzeit period, that are

located on major roads, and which are important for urban cohesion. The project

provides an alternative to the usual rental market, and attracts interest from people

with ‘alternative’ lifestyles and different living requirements from the ‘norm’, who are

not catered for by typical rental conditions e.g. students, young professionals or

artists. The occupants become the ‘guardians’ of the building. Their presence helps

to prevent vandalism, to limit weather damage, and to ensure general maintenance.

In most cases, the legal owners of the buildings allow the users to inhabit the

flats rent-free. The basic premise of the initiative is that the new residents give

the whole neighbourhood an image of openness and originality. As a result, the

neighbourhood is likely to attract more inhabitants.

The City of Leipzig now has a new integrated urban development scheme which covers the next decade or so,

known as “City 2020 – redesigning the future” (Stadt 2020 – Zukunft neu gestalten). Demographic change is one

of its major topics.

1 Info

rmat

ion

give

n by

the

repr

esen

tativ

es o

f the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Eur

opea

n an

d In

tern

atio

nal A

ffairs

and

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Urb

an R

egen

erat

ion

and

Resid

entia

l Dev

elop

men

t of t

he C

ity o

f Lei

pzig

, 25/

08/0

8.

26 27

Brno

4_Profiles of five cities 4.2_Brno

Brno is the second largest city in the Czech Republic, with almost 370,000 inhabitants

living in an area of 230 km². As the regional capital of South Moravia, it also serves as a

supra-regional centre of administration and justice for the Czech Republic. In addition,

Brno is the most important trade fair and exhibition centre in East Central Europe. In

the past 20 years, Brno’s tertiary, or service, sector has gained significance. Within the

context of population and housing market development, also Brno’s function as a

centre of education, science and research needs to be highlighted; and the fact that

there are five public universities with more than 65,000 students shows how important

the education sector is for the city. In the following sections we look more closely into

recent demographic and housing market changes in Brno.

Demographic development

After World War II, from 1945 onwards, the population of Brno grew steadily (Fig. 4.2.1). This trend lasted until 1993

when the peak population reached 390,000. In-migration was the driving force of this population growth. Even in

the 1980s, when there was already a natural population decline, net migration still outweighed the natural decline

(Table 4.2.1).

Table 4.2.1_Brno – natural population development and migration balance 1951–1990

1951-1960 1961-1970 1971-1980 1981-1990 1951-1990

total

Natural population development 15,675 3,676 8,978 -2,605 25,724

Migration balance 13,366 22,294 22,866 23,444 81,970

Total population development 29,041 25,970 31,844 20,839 107,694

Source: ČSÚ 2006

Between 1994 and 2006, Brno’s population decreased (Fig. 4.2.1 and 4.2.3). In 1994, positive net migration still

compensated for the natural decline. But as out-migration increased during the 1990s, this led to a net outward-

migration.

Figure 4.2.1_Brno – population development 1937–2007 (as of 01/07)

Sources: ČSÚ 2006 and 2008

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

01937 1945 1950 1960 1970 1980 1993 1994 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Inha

bita

nts

289,

326

242,

485

284,

670

320,

947

335,

700

374,

370

390,

051

390,

073

383,

034

375,

265

371,

448

369,

71?

368,

296

366,

904

366,

384

368,

533

28 29

As for recent years, two main demographic trends can be identified:

– Firstly, out-migration caused population loss: the number of people moving out of the city doubled between

2000 and 2002 and then stabilised (to between 6,900 and 7,900) up until 2006. During that time, the number

of people moving into the city also doubled, but because smaller numbers of people were involved, there

was a net out-migration between 2000 and 2006. Out-migration during this time was mostly caused by

growing suburbanisation which had started to become significant in 1999/2000 (see info-box below). Subur-

banites are predominantly aged between 20 and 35.

– The second main demographic trend in terms of population loss during this time was the long-term natural

population decrease. Only recently has Brno experienced a positive population increase again (Fig. 4.2.3).

Info-box: Suburbanisation in Brno: a recent phenomenon

As with other European cities, Brno has seen the suburbanisation of retail outlets, services, industries and

housing. This trend has intensified since 1999, with significantly increasing numbers of people moving to

suburbia and the urban hinterland. Fig. 4.2.2 shows the increase in population around Brno, and the loss of

population mainly from the inner city (and less, for example, from the large housing estates). Between 2001

and 2003, there was a net out-migration to the suburbs of some 5,000 people (Table 4.2.2). Municipal experts

estimate a loss of about 20,000 inhabitants to suburbia since 1990.

Suburbanisation is socially and demographically selective. Mostly, it is families with higher incomes and

qualifications who move to suburbia, looking for detached houses in rural surroundings. In effect, the inner

city loses facilities and inhabitants, and the city faces spatial deconcentration. Suburbanisation leads to

growing urban infrastructure costs, more commuters and traffic, and increasing socio-spatial differentiation

and fragmentation. But problems also arise in the suburban locations. For example, the social and physical

infrastructure is burdened with rapidly rising demand; and social tensions between established inhabitants

and new inhabitants can occur due to lack of integration.

Suburbanisation has partly been caused by a demand for new homes due to housing shortages and lack

of available rental dwellings within the city. Until recently, both the government and banks supported the

construction of new homes with cheap finance.

More recently, developers changed their strategy and began to build homes for

the middle classes, so that suburban housing has become more affordable for a

greater range of people. In the last few years, the supply of cheap public finance

has decreased and suburbanisation has levelled off (Maier 2001; Maas 2007).

Finally, a specific form of suburbanisation in the Czech Republic is the upgrading of weekend homes into permanent residences.

Brno

Fig.4.2.2_Comparison of population between 1991 and 2001

Sources: VCRR MU 2005; MMB, Department of Planning and Development. We are grateful to the Institute of Geonics (AV ČR v.v.i.), Brno, and to Dagmar Haase (UFZ) for information and technical assistance.

Table 4.2.2_Migration balance between Brno and its surrounding districts

District 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2003 1991-2003

total

Brno Venkov -667 -2,674 -3,871 -7,212

Blansko -22 -378 -304 -704

Břeclav 161 -196 -126 -161

Hodonín 202 97 17 316

Vyškov -116 -750 -637 -1,503

Znojmo 100 -113 -159 -172

Total -342 -4,014 -5,080 -9,436

!

!"#$%# &'()*+,

-./0#,

1#2#"3"

&*+"/0#

&'"#4-("0#,&'"#

! "! #!$! %&

According to Czech Statistical Office (ČSÚ) data, the first time the number of inhabitants increased

in the new millennium was between 2006 and 2007: to a population of 368,533 people (Fig. 4.2.1

above). Other data sources (ISEO registry of the Czech Ministry for Interior) show the timing of this

first population increase as occurring earlier: in 2004 (see also Addendum).

Figure 4.2.3_Brno – natural population development and migration balance 1991-2006

natural population development migration balance Source: ČSÚ 2007

30 31

2,500

1,500

500

-500

-1,500

-2,500

-3,5001991

-222

453

1999

-1,0

60

-79

-1,2

61

-68

1997

-656

-2,1

11

2003

-1,3

46

280

1996

-1,1

81

1,03

8

19951994

-723

-2,7

51

2002

-415

528

1993

-1,0

07 -700

2001

-416

1,96

1

1992

-1,1

19

-39

20001998

-1,3

99

-305

2004

-750

-196

2005

-383

-1.4

47

-104

-868

2006

223

-300

Inha

bita

nts

The recent growth in population was caused by three main factors: an increasing number of births;

stable mortality rates (between 4,200 and 3,800 deaths annually); and a lower negative or even a

slight positive migration balance than in earlier years. Taken together, the number of inhabitants of

Brno grew by 1,853 (0.5%) in 2007 in comparison with end of 2006 (ČSÚ 2008). But the increasing

number of births, which is to be observed all over the Czech Republic, is likely to be a short-term

phenomenon. The large birth cohorts from the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s,

which were the result of policies designed to raise the birth rate, are now at the stage of starting a

family. Subsequent birth cohorts, during the 1990s, are significantly smaller: so when these 1990s

birth cohorts enter their reproductive years, there are likely to be fewer births. While these trends

are mirroring general demographic trends in the Czech Republic (CoE 2005, 76; VID, PBR 2008), they

have to be seen in the context of the city’s specific situation, including its strong Roma community

(see the second info-box below).

The two main demographic trends for Brno, net out-migration and decreasing fertility, have

resulted in changes to the population structure of the city, most significantly to the age profile

(Table 4.2.3). Between 1991 and 2006, the average age increased from 37.9 years to 41.8 years. While

the number of children (inhabitants aged 0-14 years) declined, the number of older people (aged

65+) increased. In 2006, older people exceeded children by 13,000. The index of ageing (shown

in Table 4.2.3) provides a clear indicator of the overall ageing process. In addition, the absolute

number of people aged 75+ increased between the census years (1991–2001) by about 0.8%. Their

share of the entire population is currently almost 7%. In this context, it is likely that Brno’s future

service provision, social infrastructure, and housing will need to be modified to meet changing

demand. We expect this tendency to strengthen further and become a major factor in Brno’s urban

development.

Table 4.2.3_Brno – demographic indicators of ageing 1991-2006

1991 1996 2001 2006

Percentage of total population aged:

0-14 19.4 16.4 14.1 12.9

15-64 66.4 68.5 70.2 70.5

65+ 14.3 15.1 15.7 16.5

Number of persons aged:

75+* 22,882 not available 25,165 not available

65+ 55,552 58,600 58,717 60,616

Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64) 29.2 23.9 20.1 18.3

Age dependency rate (65+/15-64) 21.6 22.1 22.4 23.4

Index of ageing (65+/0-14) 73.9 92.3 111.6 127.8

Average age 37.9 39.1 40.6 41.8

Source: ČSÚ 2007; * only available from census data

Brno

32 33

In spite of population losses and the declining number of younger people,

educational levels have changed: the absolute number (and share) of

people with university degrees or similar higher educational achievements

increased in the inter-census period. Between 1991 and 2001, i.e. before

suburbanisation took pace, the number of people with low formal

qualifications has decreased. (We expect this to change in the next census.)

In this context, students are an important residential group in the city -

although they are not always registered citizens, as will be discussed below.

At the public universities in Brno, the number of students increased from

45,000 in 2002/2003 to 65,000 in 2006/2007 (ČSÚ, Regional Office Brno 2002-

2007). Since students are no longer just concentrated in halls of residence

but increasingly share flats all over the city, this large student group has

significant effects on the housing market. The student population also

affects the demand for services, transport and the cultural, technical and

social infrastructure (Steinführer, Haase 2008, 20).

Population projections

In 1993 and 1998 the Czech Statistical Office (ČSÚ) provided projections for future population changes in Brno

(Table 4.2.4). Although not strictly comparable, the table also shows the only population projections for the city

that have been published more recently. These were compiled by the Centre for Regional Development of the

Masaryk University Brno (VCRR MU), and based upon the medium scenario of the earlier ČSÚ projections which

they modulated to recent developments (Table 4.2.4).

Table 4.2.4_Brno - population projections 2000 - 2030

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

ČSÚ 1993 386,161 383,811 378,501 370,696 361,647 - -

ČSÚ 1998 382,962 378,426 374,523 369,119 361,647 - -

VCRR MU 2002 - 370,388 369,620 368,783 366,180 361,143 353,811

Source: VCRR MU 2005 (also for ČSÚ projections)

According to these two sources, the population of Brno is predicted to decrease over the

medium-term. However, recent population figures for the city show that the changes are

likely to be even more marked than the projections indicate. Although the modified pro-

jection compiled by VCRR MU for the year 2020 was calculated at 366,180, in fact, the popu-

lation had already fallen to this level by 2006 (the actual 2006 population was 366,680).

Thus, both sets of available population projections are probably too high, due to an under-

estimation of the levels of out-migration.

Concerning ageing, in 2006, the actual share of people aged 65+ was 16.5% (Table 4.2.3).

The modified projection compiled by the VCRR MU predicts that the number of people

aged 65+ years will have increased to 91,000 by the year 2030, representing 26% of the

total population of Brno. Meanwhile, the proportion of children (aged 0-14) is predicted to

decrease from 13% down to less than 11% (40,000). Despite the inevitable hypothetical

nature of these projections, nevertheless, it seems likely that there will be two overall future

trends for population changes in the city: significant ageing and moderate shrinking.

Households and housing market: from problems of quantity to problems of quality

The numbers and structures of households are key indicators for understanding the housing market. Therefore, be-

fore looking at the Brno housing market itself, we need to consider changes in household numbers and structures

in the city. Unfortunately, this information is only available from the censuses of 1991 and 2001. Therefore, it does

not reflect the exact current situation. Yet, already by 2001, the figures show a noticeable tendency towards more

diversity and towards smaller units, which resulted in an increasing number of households, in spite of a shrinking

population (+1%; Table 4.2.5).

Table 4.2.5_Brno – indicators of the housing market 1991 and 2001 (census data)

1991 2001

Total resident population 388,296 376,172

Total number of dwellings 158,555 165,366

Total number of households 165,880 167,740

Total number of one-person households 51,573 55,788

Share of one-person households (%) 31.1 33.3

Average household size 2.34 2.24

Living space per inhabitant in m² 16.1 17.9

Source: ČSÚ 2003

However, not all of these households occupy a separate dwelling: in 2001 the Czech

statistics show a difference of 2,000 between the number of dwellings and the

number of households only for Brno. In the Czech research literature, this

phenomenon is known as “households which don’t live on their own”, nebydlící

domácnosti (e.g. Lux 2001, 34), and rooted in decades of housing shortage (see also

below).

Brno

34 35

In connection with these trends, the number of what the Czech statistics call “complete families” (married or

co-habiting couples with or without children)2 shrank by about 12% between 1991 and 2001. In contrast, the

proportion of one-parent households (“incomplete families”) increased: from 19% in 1991 to 25% in 2001. At this time,

one-person households already accounted for one in three households in the city. Also, the variety of household types

grew in this inter-census period. For example, the share of multi-person households comprising unrelated people

increased from 0.4% to 2.9%. These include both voluntary flat-sharers, and, due to the specific housing-market

situation, involuntary flat-sharers who could not find their own housing. In the future, the number of households is

likely to increase further, together with a growing demand for housing.

The housing market of Brno is characterised by three main segments: tenement housing

from before 1948; system-built housing stock from the 1960s onwards (paneláky); and

detached and semi-detached houses (Table 4.2.6). In 2001, about 33% of the housing stock

was owned by the municipality (46% in 1991); 27% was possessed by owner-occupiers; 22%

was held by housing cooperatives; and 14% was owned by newly established associations

of owner-occupiers. In the inter-census period, the mean dwelling size grew by about 2.9

m² to 44 m² (i.e. 17.9 m² per capita, which is less than half the mean housing space per

person in Germany).

Table 4.2.6_Brno – indicators of the housing market (census data 2001)

Housing stock from before 1946 33%

Housing stock 1946-1990 61%

Housing stock 1991-2001 6%

System-built housing stock (paneláky) 43%

Dwellings in detached and semidetached houses 20%

Not permanently occupied dwellings* 8%

Dwellings owned by the municipality 33%

Privately owned dwellings 27%

Dwellings owned by cooperatives 22%

Dwellings owned by associations of owner-occupiers 14%

Sources: ČSÚ 2003, Steinführer 2006; * usually not vacant but occupied by non-permanent residents

Between 1991 and 2001, the total housing stock grew by just 4% (+6,800 dwellings; Table

4.2.5 above); and the number of permanently occupied dwellings remained stable (+53

dwellings). This is in contrast to the slightly increased number of households. As found

across the entire Czech Republic, in Brno in 2001, the number of households was higher

than the number of dwellings available (2,374 more households than dwellings). This is not

surprising, as for many decades, the housing market in Brno has been characterised by a

housing shortage. One of the most important strategies to solve the problem of housing

shortage is the ongoing densification of already densely built areas, be it in the inner city or

in the large housing estates (Fig. 4.2.4).

2 The

Cze

ch R

epub

lic st

atist

ics d

efine

mar

ried

and

coha

bitin

g co

uple

s with

and

with

out c

hild

ren

as “c

ompl

ete”

fam

ilies

. Thi

s is i

n co

ntra

st w

ith th

e m

ore

com

mon

defi

nitio

n of

the

fam

ily a

s a li

ving

arra

ngem

ent

of a

t lea

st tw

o ge

nera

tions

, one

of t

hem

bei

ng c

hild

ren

or te

ens.

Yet the situation is much more complicated than this, due to a variety of legal, economic and historical

constraints (Kostelecký 2000; Steinführer 2004). In 2000, the Czech housing market researcher, Martin Lux,

found an “artificial housing shortage” (Lux 2000, 23) across the whole Czech Republic, a rather unusual

assessment at that time. However, in 2001, when housing shortage was still the main focus of the country’s

housing policies, also the authors of the municipal Housing Strategy for Brno stated that, quantitatively, the

housing supply in the city was sufficient (MMB 2001, App. 1, 1).

Figure 4.2.4: Residential extensions in the inner city (left) and the large housing estate Líšeň by attic conversion (Photos: A. Steinführer 2004, K. Großmann 2007)

In addition, the housing market is highly fragmented. In Brno, as in the whole Czech

Republic, rental housing became increasingly marginalized in the post-socialist

period (Steinführer 2004). Due to a complexity of different causes, the municipal

housing sector (i.e. dwellings owned by the municipality: 33% of the entire Brno

housing stock in 2001) is almost inaccessible to people looking for a flat: at least,

not legally accessible. This is due to the fact that sitting tenants are strongly

protected by law. By the ‘dekret na byt’ (a quasi-contract from the state-socialist

period), tenants have similar rights to those of owner-occupiers. This dekret can

be inherited or traded. Furthermore, there are still fixed rents in the municipal

housing market segment, and prices in this sector have only been raised slightly

during the last 17 years in comparison with other housing market segments. This

has kept renovation activities relatively low. Only for newly constructed houses

and for rental contracts starting after 1990, are rents subject to market prices.

Therefore, newcomers to the housing market have four choices: they either have to

look for owner-occupier housing; or they have to find a home to rent in the very small

private rental housing market; they can try to buy a dekret or they rent in the

widespread grey and black markets.

Brno

36 37

Another related phenomenon, already mentioned above, is the fact that in many cases,

different generations, or even different households of unrelated people, are forced

to share one dwelling. Together with the low average living space per person, this

indicates the potential for further rising demand. Finally, as also mentioned above,

while the overall number of dwellings remained almost stable between 1991 and 2001,

the number of detached and semi-detached houses rose by 2,406 in the same period.

This was accompanied by decreasing population densities in inner-city districts, and

increasing densities in the housing estates, which are mostly at the urban fringe. This

is another consequence of the ‘intra-urban’ suburbanisation: the trend for relocation

within the administrative borders of Brno. However, residential suburbanisation has

increased since the 2001 census, but there is no data available on this. (It is the censuses

which provide the most useful and the only comprehensive information about housing

market structures).

The findings discussed so far are mainly based upon census data from 2001. From ongoing qualitative

investigations within the conDENSE research project, we know that there have been several significant changes

in the housing market in recent years, particularly since the accession to the European Union in 2004:

– Firstly, the Czech Republic, and in particular its largest cities, Prague and Brno, experienced a booming

property market after 2004, with rapidly increasing prices.

– Secondly, there was a considerable increase in the privatisation of municipal housing to sitting tenants: this

mainly affects inner-city tenement housing. While in 1999 the City of Brno still owned 93% of its original

housing stock (1991=100%), this share has rapidly decreased in recent years. By 2002, the municipality owned

87% and by 2006 only 68% of the original housing stock (Chlupová et al. 2008, 18). However, in contrast with

other Czech cities, the privatisation of publicly-owned housing in Brno is relatively slow since the municipality

does not favour a give-away privatisation of its entire housing stock.

– The final point to make here is that after the reform of housing allowance in 2004, students became

decisive players in the housing market. Since then, all students, regardless of their housing status, have been

eligible for a housing allowance. This has opened up a completely new housing market segment to them:

private rental housing, be it legally or illegally. Often, municipal renters and owner-occupiers do not live in

the dwelling for which they are on the tenancy or property agreement; instead they rent the dwelling out

(sublet it), either formally or informally, to other people who are not on the tenancy agreement. This is a

further reason why official population numbers should be treated with caution (see also Chapter 4.3 on Łódź

and the Addendum).

From these last points we conclude that there is an urgent need for inter-census

monitoring of the housing market. The City of Brno already once made good experience

with such investigations when conducting the project “Housing, an integral approach”

between 1999 and 2002, which, in cooperation with Utrecht (a member of EUROCITIES),

resulted in the Brno Housing Strategy 2001 (MMB 2001 and 2002; City of Brno/

Municipality of Utrecht 2002).

Brno

Info-box: Romanies in Brno: spatial concentration, social exclusion and promising local projects*

The population of the eastern part of Brno’s inner city includes a Roma minority, most of whom migrated to Brno from Slovakia in the

1990s. The most recent Brno census (2001) shows just 374 people are Romanies. However, the size of this ethnic minority group is

significantly higher, as qualitative research shows that many will have categorised themselves as Czech or Slovak nationality. Local

estimations range from 10,000 people to a likely overestimation of 35,000 people.

The Roma minority has a higher proportion of younger people than the

Brno population as a whole, and also a higher birth rate, although this has

decreased during the last few years. As a whole, the group shows a higher

average number of children per woman and earlier childbearing.

In everyday conversation, in the media and even in planning debates,

the main term used for their neighbourhood is “the Bronx”, a clearly

defined area that is also on the mental map of Brno. For the Czech

majority, these parts of the city represent the least sought-after areas in a

wide range of residential locations. A local real estate agent told us that

in terms of house hunting neither the customer nor the agent would even mention this area as a possible place to live. It is common

knowledge that this is “the Gypsies’ home”, even though Czech people also live there, mainly older people with lower socio-economic

status.

The spatial concentration of Romanies in some of the areas with Brno’s poorest housing conditions goes hand-in-hand with social

exclusion: the one reinforces the other. Many Roma have little or no formal education and are either unemployed (about one third of all

unemployed in Brno are Roma people, i.e. circa 4,000 persons) or work in unskilled and thus badly paid jobs.

Yet, a number of initiatives are helping to regenerate the eastern part of Brno’s inner-city area. In 1991, the Museum of Roma Culture

was founded: the first in the Czech Republic and, possibly, the first in Europe. In 2000, a permanent exhibition was opened to the public

(www.rommuz.cz). Another project which ran from 1999 to 2003, initiated by NGO Drom and supported by the municipal government

and the Ministry of Regional Development, worked to improve housing conditions by refurbishing two highly dilapidated tenement

houses in the area. The work was carried out by people who owed rent to the municipality, enabling them to cancel their debt and move

into an improved home.

* We are grateful for background information on this topic provided by Jana Pospíšilová (Ethnological Institute, AV ČR v.v.i., Branch Brno).

Photo: A. Haase (2004)

38 39

How does the City of Brno deal with demographic changes in the field of housing?3 For the City of Brno, ageing of the population and suburbanisation are highlighted as the biggest local problems

at present. A limited supply of affordable and attractive housing within the inner parts of the city is leading to out-

migration of the population, to the outskirts of the city or to areas outside the city boundaries. But these people

still travel into Brno for work, education, shopping, health care, culture and sporting activities. A negative conse-

quence of commuting is the intense traffic, causing environmental pollution. Furthermore, household structures

are changing: in particular, the number of one-person households is increasing. Due to these trends, the City of

Brno is planning to increase the supply of different types of housing, as well as increasing the land available for

housing: the local land-use plan is currently under negotiation. To address the requirements of the ageing proc-

ess, the Social Service Plan (by 2009) contains concrete strategies in the field of care for older people and other

vulnerable groups.

According to key municipal planning documents (e.g.

City of Brno Strategy, Master Plan, Communal planning,

General housing plan/Generel bydlení), the City of Brno

actively supports development projects which improve

the quality of the city. The specific strategy is based on

three pillars with specific aims:

- Quality of life: improving the attractiveness of life

within the city, by offering a greater variety of

housing, more leisure and sports activities, and more

cultural events; by ensuring public safety; and by

adopting effective social and health care policies.

– Research, development, innovation and education:

preparing conditions that attract and keep human

capital in the city, by ensuring an infrastructure

for research, development and innovation; and by

fostering innovative policies in the field of human

resources development.

– Local economic development: creating an environ-

ment in Brno that will attract business enterprises.

3 Info

rmat

ion

give

n by

the

repr

esen

tativ

e of

the

Fore

ign

Rela

tions

Dep

artm

ent o

f the

City

of B

rno,

31/

07/0

8.

Łódź

Łódź is the third largest city in Poland after the capital city of Warsaw and the city of Kraków.

For a long time, Łódź was Poland’s second largest city, but due to significant population losses

over the last two decades, it was overtaken by Kraków in 2007 (Kraków 757,000 vs. Łódź 753,000

inhabitants). Łódź is one of Poland’s second-order cities, and fulfils important administrative,

economic and cultural functions for the whole region (voivodeship).

Demographic development from growth to decline

Following the severe population decline and the loss of its multi-ethnic past as a result of World War II (the Holocaust,

and the resettlement of the German population), Łódź saw steady population growth during state socialism between

the 1950s and the 1980s (Fig. 4.3.1). This was driven by high birth rates as well as by labour migration. The highest

population was reached in 1984/85; since then, population has been decreasing. The 1988/1989 growth was due to

the administrative enlargement of the city’s boundaries. Population loss accelerated during the 1990s: from 1988 to

2006, the city lost almost 100,000 inhabitants (11%) – a striking story of decline.

Figure 4.3.1_Łódź – population development 1950–2006 (per 31/12)

Source: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, GUS 2008

In the 19th and 20th centuries, Łódź was a textile city (the ‘Manchester of Poland’ – in the same

way that Brno was the ‘Manchester of Moravia’). During the two decades or so after 1945, the

city experienced a new era of economic prosperity as the centre of the Polish textile industry.

By 1970, about 60% of all employees worked in the industrial sector (228,000 persons). But by

1980, this proportion had decreased to 50% (204,000 persons) and by 1990, it was down to 38%

(93,000 persons) (Jakóbczyk-Gryszkiewicz 1997, 115). In the 1980s, the decline in the textile

industry in Łódź was already causing population loss. From the 1990s onwards, the economic

structure of the city changed significantly, in favour of the service sector (Riley et al. 1999, 26).

4_Profiles of five cities 4.3_Łódź

900,000

850,000

800,000

750,000

700,000

650,000

600,0001950 1970 1978 1985 1988 1989 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Inha

bita

nts

630,

000

762,

700 82

5,20

0

847,

900

851,

500

851,

700

848,

258

838,

367

828,

459

817,

983

806,

728

798,

418

786,

526

785,

134

779,

129

774,

004

767,

628

760,

251

Current shrinkage due to natural decline and out-migration

Recent population decline in Łódź can be attributed to two causes: firstly, more deaths

than births, and secondly, losses do to out-migration and emigration (Fig. 4.3.2).

From 1988 to 2002, the general fertility rate (GFR) in Łódź decreased from 39.8 to 26.2

births per 1,000 women (aged 15-49). In that period, taking 1988 as the baseline of

100%, the dynamic fertility rate indicator decreased to 67%. Much of this decline in

the fertility rate has been due to postponement of childbearing, and is thus typical of

reproductive behaviour in the whole of Poland and in other post-socialist countries

(Okólski 2006, 105-11, Slany 2007). In Łódź, the difficult economic situation after 1989

further contributed to this trend. Recent data, however, indicate the first symptoms of a

meantime “recovery”, i.e. a rising fertility rate.

In addition to the natural population decline (the surplus of deaths over births),

population decline in Łódź has also been caused by out-migration. The numbers

involved are lower than for natural decline, but they are made up of both inter-regional

migration and low-level suburbanisation (Haase, A. et al. 2007, 156-7). Over the last

decade, from 1999 onwards, Łódź has seen a net out-migration every year (Fig. 4.3.2).

Figure 4.3.2_Łódź – natural population development and migration balance 1990–2006

natural population development migration balance Source: GUS 2008

40 41

2,000

0

-2,000

-4,000

-6,000

-8,0001990 19991997 200319961995 20021992 1993 1994 20011991 20001998 2004 2005 2006

-4,0

21

589

-5,3

93

146

-4,7

96

51

-4,8

04

141

-4,4

48

1,05

1

183

-5,6

92

-5,4

00

-14

-5,2

80

-721

-5,5

30

-743

-4,5

59-2

11

-6,0

15-4

09

-5,3

06

-145

-4,9

24

-968

-4,7

85

-957

-4,5

00

-1,1

49

-4,6

74

-1,3

69

-4,9

26

-1,7

91

Inha

bita

nts

Łódź

Between 1991 and 2006, the outflow of people from Łódź to other regions in Poland gradually increased while the

inflow of people remained more or less stable (Table 4.3.1). The data also shows fewer people moving in from rural

areas. This can be explained in particular by the high unemployment rates in Łódź during the 1990s. In that period the

city also lost its status as an important Polish centre for in-migration from other regions of Poland. The official figures

for Łódź show a net international emigration throughout the entire period, with more inhabitants moving to other

countries than foreign nationals moving in. However, the numbers of people involved are low (between 26 and 228

people per year: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, 64). In comparison with other large cities in Poland, Łódź and Poznań

were the only cities showing a negative migration balance for the whole period between 1995 and 2005 (Bierzyński,

Węcławowicz 2008, 64 and 66). In terms of the total number of in-migrants between 1988 and 2002, the majority

originated from other urban areas (59%), a minority were from rural areas (34%) and a very low percentage came from

abroad (5%).

Table 4.3.1_Łódź – inter-regional migration 1991-2006

Year In-migration Out-migration

from urban areas from rural areas to urban areas to rural areas

1991 2,443 2,147 2,401 1,056

1996 2,316 1,758 2,317 1,696

2001 2,206 1,463 2,265 1,975

2006 2,616 1,609 2,900 2,720

Source: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008

Yet, official migration statistics need to be interpreted with caution. They often give an

incomplete representation of the true picture, as their quality depends heavily on the

willingness of migrants to register their actual behaviour. In Poland, the official regional

population registers are regarded as significantly incomplete (Kowalski, Śleszyński 2006,

111). So the numbers reflect just part of the true migration process. This relates especially

to seasonal and long-term labour-related emigration to Western Europe, but also to

students and young professionals who have moved to the city but are still registered

at their parents’ residence. Qualitative research carried out by the authors in Łódź and

other Polish cities over the last few years (as part of the conDENSE project), showed

strong evidence of the phenomenon of incomplete data. Moreover, the data on urban-

to-rural migration do not differentiate between urban-to-suburban migration on the

one hand, and urban-to-rural migration on the other. Thus, suburbanisation that has

increased for Łódź during the past decade cannot be detected from the official

statistics.

Neither are there data on intra-urban migration (which, for example, is also a problem in Brno). The rates of population

change within single districts of Łódź between 1988 and 2002 were at a low level (mean value 5%). It was only the in-

ner city that displayed a higher level of population change between 1988 and 2002 (10%; see also below).

42 43

Ageing and changing household structures

Over the last few decades, the city of Łódź has faced a continuous and significant

process of ageing. This can be attributed to various factors. Firstly, there has been a drop in

birth rates and an increase in life expectancy (Kurek 2008). Secondly, the postponement

of childbearing has played a role. Thirdly, the city has seen a net out-migration of

people of working age (and thus a decreasing share of this age group) because of high

unemployment. Fourthly, suburbanisation4, although not on a very high level, has

mainly involved younger and middle-aged groups moving out to the suburbs. These

processes have resulted in an accelerating ageing process (Table 4.3.2).

Table 4.3.2_Łódź – demographic indicators of ageing 1988-2006

1988* 1996 2001 2002* 2006

Share of total population aged

0-14 18.9 15.4 12.5 12.4 11.3

15-64 68.4 69.0 71.1 71.1 71.8

65+ 12.6 15.6 16.4 16.5 16.9

Number of persons aged:

75+ 43,318 40,973 52,153 53,092 62,174

65+ 107,659 127,319 129,684 130,092 128,291

Youth dependency rate

(0-14/15-65) 27.5 22.3 17.6 17.4 15.8

Age dependency rate

(65+/15-65) 18.4 22.5 23.0 23.2 23.5

Index of ageing

(65+/0-14) 66.7 101.2 130.7 133.0 148.8

Average age** not available 39.8 41.1 not available 42.5

Sources: GUS 2008, authors’ calculations; * census data; ** the mean age could in reality be slightly higher since only aggregate data are available for the 85+ age group.

The index of ageing (i.e. the ratio of older people to children)

increased from 67 in 1988 to 149 in 2006. In the same

period, the share of children decreased from 19% to 11%,

while the percentage of the population of working age

(15-64) remained more or less stable (68% in 1988 vs. 72%

in 2006). The percentage of older people (aged 65+) grew

from 13% in 1988 to 17% in 2006. Consequently, the average

age also increased. Looking at the population aged between

15 and 64 years, the share of the younger age groups (to 44

years) decreased, while the share of those aged between 45

and 64 years grew considerably (Bierzyński, Węcławowicz

2008, 20).

4 To a

smal

l deg

ree,

subu

rban

isatio

n al

read

y oc

curre

d be

fore

the

begi

nnin

g of

pos

t-so

cial

ist tr

ansit

ion.

Łódź

In contrast to the city’s significant 7.7% loss of population from 1988 to 2002 (during which time the number of

inhabitants declined by 66,000; Fig. 4.3.1 above), the number of households increased by 3%. This was due to a

significantly growing number of small and, in particular, of one-person households (+40%; cf. Table 4.3.3 and

Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, 31). The share of one-person households in the inner city reached 40% in 2002. At the

same time, the share of bigger households decreased (households with 3+ people declined from 44% in 1988 to 36%

in 2002). These changes had to do, not least, with changing family structures and family size. During the inter-census

period (1988-2002), the number of one-child families increased, while the number of families with two or more children

decreased. Among families with parents aged <29 years, the number of one-child families increased by 5%, while the

number of families with two children decreased by 6%. This gives evidence for the increase in mean age at first birth

(due to the postponement of childbearing).

Table 4.3.3_Łódź – indicators of the housing market 1988 and 2002 (census data)

1988 2002

Total resident population 854,261 789,313

Total number of dwellings 313,764 316,206

Total number of households 342,235 351,952

Total number of one-person households 88,792 124,601

Share of one-person households (%) 25.9 35.4

Average household size 2.45 2.34

Sources: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, authors’ calculations

Non-traditional household types also increased in importance, but these are only partly

covered by the statistics. Recent qualitative research in Łódź, in the course of the con-

DENSE project, showed evidence of a wide variety of households. They range from singles,

to cohabiting couples, to flat sharers, and to even more complex, multi-household

arrangements: we found, for example, a flat owned by a single person, and inhabited by

him and a cohabiting student couple as unregistered subtenants, or flats that are shared

by two or more family households. Also, the major difference between the number of

inhabited dwellings and the number of households (Table 4.3.3) provides indirect evidence

of such single-dwelling multi-household arrangements. The complexity behind the figures

is, however, not detectable in the statistics. Even though there is some information about

“non-family, multi-person households” in the Łódź census, it is impossible to clearly identify

them as student flat-sharers or young professionals, as they could alternatively comprise

unrelated older people, or perhaps impoverished people sharing a flat for economic

rea-sons. Moreover, our research also provides evidence that the number of students living

in Łódź, which is an increasingly important factor in the local housing market, is considerably

underestimated.5 Qualitative research on these aspects is therefore indispensable: it gives

clear evidence that official statistics often unveil only part of the complex story of urban

socio-demographic change.

5 We

are

grat

eful

to o

ur c

olle

ague

Ada

m B

ierz

yńsk

i fro

m th

e In

stitu

te o

f Geo

grap

hy a

nd S

patia

l Org

aniz

atio

n at

the

Polis

h Ac

adem

y of

Sci

ence

s in

War

saw

for t

he in

form

atio

n pr

ovid

ed.

44 45

Socio-demographic change in the inner city

Over the last decade, and almost undetected until now, the

inner city of Łódź (district Śródmieście) has undergone a

process of repopulation by non-traditional households. This

has led to a younger age profile, or, at least, has countered

the ageing process. For a long time, the inner city of Łódź

had been especially affected by population losses. In

absolute numbers, the population decreased from 99,000

in 1990 to 79,000 in 2005: a fall of 20% in relative terms

(Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, 11).

In 1988, the inner city had a comparatively “older” profile than the total city, with a higher proportion of older people

and a lower proportion of younger people. But by the late 1990s, this trend started to change. Already the last census

(2002) showed higher numbers of young people and lower numbers of older people in the inner city, compared with

the city as a whole. Moreover, Śródmieście is characterised by a higher in-migration of young residents: at the overall

city level, just 15% of all residents in their twenties had in-migrated to Łódź between 1989 and 2002; but for the inner

city, over double that proportion, 33%, of all residents aged 20-30 had in-migrated between 1989 and 2002. According

to our research, this trend has intensified in recent years. We found evidence of a significant number of unregistered

newcomers living in the inner city for at least a limited period. These are mainly younger people in education, but also

include early-stage professionals: they intend to stay in the inner city for a certain period of time, and tend to live in

transitory and fluid housing arrangements (see also info-box > page 49).

The urban demographic future – further population decline and ageing

According to population projections (the latest one was published in 2004 by the

Central Statistical Office GUS), the population decline of Łódź will continue during

the next decades. The population decline is predicted at a rate of up to 6,000 people

a year up to 2020; after that the decline may even rise to between 6,500 and 7,500

people a year. The total decrease in inhabitants in the period 2005-2030 is expected

to amount to 164,000 people (which represents 21% of the total 2005 population;

GUS 2004). Of the five largest cities in Poland, this is the most significant relative loss

of inhabitants: during the period covered by the projections, Poznań will lose 15%

of its 2005 population, Kraków and Wrocław 14% each, and Warsaw 9%. By 2030, the

population of Łódź is predicted to be 605,000.

Future population decline will be caused mainly by natural decrease (surplus of

deaths over births), out-migration and emigration. The decrease is predicted to be

primarily an effect of natural decrease (mainly due to low birth numbers). It is the

main explanatory factor for the projected drop in inhabitants between 2006 and

2030. Suburbanisation will probably play a rather limited role also in the future.

Łódź

Table 4.3.4_Łódź – population projections 2005 - 2030

Year /share of total population/ Pre-working Working Post-working

change/ dynamic index age (0-17) age* age**

Łódź 2005 111,315 508,709 148,877

Share of total population 14.5 66.2 19.4

2030 66,848 339,911 198,345

Share of total population 11.1 56.2 32.8

2030-2005 -44,467 -168,798 49,468

2005=100% 60.1 66.8 133.2

Inner city 2005 12,558 55,153 13,669

Share of total population 15.4 67.8 16.8

2030 7,478 37,090 19,420

Share of total population 11.7 58.0 30.4

2030-2005 -5,080 -18,063 5,751

2005=100% 59.6 67.2 142.1

Source: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008; * working age men: 18-64 / women: 18-60; ** post-working age men: 64+ / women 60+

The current process of ageing is also predicted to continue into the

future. The forecast shows that the share of inhabitants of pre-working

age (0-17) in the whole city will decrease between 2005 and 2030 from

15% to 11% (Table 4.3.4). According to these projections, it is the older

age groups (64+) that will see the biggest increase (from 19% in 2005

up to 33% in 2030). The age dependency ratio (the number of people

65+ divided by the number aged 15-64) will double by 2030. Although

the projections displayed in Table 4.3.4 compare the demographic

development of the inner city with that of the whole city, the authors

are not convinced about this linear extrapolation. This is because, as

mentioned above, the inner city has started to attract younger

inhabitants over the last few years and could maintain this trend in

the future. This is, however, dependent on a number of other socio-

economic trends.

46 47

Housing market: ongoing shortage and quality problems

As in other cities in Poland, the housing market in Łódź has changed considerably, due to

privatisation and post-socialist restructuring after 1989. The changes are characterised first and

foremost by a rising share of privately owned dwellings, which are occupied either by renters

or owner-occupiers. There are also differences in the tenure structure: in the inner city tenure is

predominantly private and municipal rental, with 36% and 41% shares, respectively; and in the

large housing estates in the outer parts of the city, tenure is predominantly cooperative (Table

4.3.5). Over the past two decades, both the municipality and the cooperatives have been selling

off their housing stock to sitting tenants for a very small percentage (only 10% to 20%) of the real

market price. Consequently, there are many owner-occupied dwellings whose owners do not have

the financial means to renovate them or even to maintain them. This holds especially true for the

inner city, where the old housing stock is in a far worse condition compared with newer estates

(Fig. 4.3.3 and 4.3.4).

Fig. 4.3.3: Bad physical state Fig. 4.3.4: Large housing estate of the inner-city housing stock Retkinia (photos: A. Haase 2007 and 2008)

Łódź

Table 4.3.5_Łódź – indicators of the housing market (as of 2002*)

Łódź Inner city

Housing market segments total in % total in %

Dwellings from before 1945 84,185 26.6 21,894 65.5

Flats 1946-1988 210,362 66.5 11,110 33.2

Flats 1989-2002 19,986 6.3 295 0.9

Not classified 1,673 0.5 120 0.4

Tenure in % in %

Private 28.4 36.0

Cooperative 44.8 17.0

Municipal 23.6 41.1

Other (state, company owned) 2.5 3.8

Flat equipped with

Water 306,800 97.0 32,800 97.9

Toilet 283,500 89.7 29,200 90.8

Gas 264,300 83.6 26,300 84.5

Average room number 3.1 2.76

Average living space in m² 52.1 54.6

Source: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008; * census data

In the course of privatisation, new forms of tenure have developed: in particular,

associations of owner-occupiers, i.e. people who have bought a home in a municipal

building which also still has tenants (people who are renting). As a result, in a single

building, there may now be at least three different types of tenure: firstly, long-term

tenants, some of whom are sharing a home with other households; secondly, owner-

occupier newcomers who have bought their home; and thirdly, tenant newcomers who

are living in privately rented homes for a while.

The municipality only has a limited influence on the housing market. In 2004-2005, it undertook a small inner-city

revitalisation project called PROREVITA (see info-box below). This was restricted to two small inner-city areas.

Due to the boom in the housing market from 2004 to 2007 (CEE Property Group 2008),

prices went up significantly. While in 2004, the price per m2 was less than 3,000 Złoty

(ca. 919 Euro), it went up to almost 6,000 Złoty (1,837 Euro) in 2007. Projects like the

Scheibler lofts, in a former textile factory in the southern part of the city centre, play

an important role in this revitalisation process. Moreover, in spite of the decline in

population described above, new housing is also being built on the urban outskirts:

on the fringes of the large housing estates and in adjacent rural areas. A considerable

number of these new housing developments are guarded, fenced or gated. Such new

housing has attracted mainly the better-off households, including people from Warsaw

or abroad, who have bought the new properties in order to let them at high rents.

48 49

Info-box: An endangered ‘jewel’ in transformation – Łódź’s old built-up inner city6

The inner city of Łódź (Śródmieście) was not destroyed during World War II. So, one of Poland’s biggest historic built-up areas has been

preserved. Characterised by its rectilinear street grid, which was laid out in the 19th century, at a time of rapid growth for the city, this area

represents a major part of the cultural heritage of Łódź (Kaczmarek 1997). Today, the majority (66%) of the inner city’s housing still dates from

before 1945, with 49% of homes dating back to before 1918 (Table 4.3.5 above). When they were built, some of the flats were very large

(>100 m2), with generous room sizes and high-standard amenities. The rest of the dwellings in this area represent sub-standard housing.

Before World War II, many homes in the inner city were in German or Jewish ownership. These dwellings became state-owned after World

War II (1945 onwards) and were assigned to Polish inhabitants. Many large dwellings were either divided up or given to more than one

family. Some flats are still shared by two or more households, with a shared corridor or even a shared kitchen and bathroom.

During the 1990s, the inner city was subject to commercialisation and renovation (Riley et al. 1999). Many small

enterprises replaced the big factories. In some locations, the inner city lost its housing function. New shopping malls,

such as Galeria Łódzka and Manufaktura, were established. The latter was created in one of the biggest former textile

buildings: the Poznański factory (Fig. 4.3.5). To date, there has been little renovation of the old building stock: renewal

activities are mainly restricted to historical sights and to selected buildings which today operate as banks, hotels,

offices and shops. The housing stock was subject to only a few renewal activities renovation up until now.

Consequently, decline is found side-by-side with urban renewal within the inner city (Fig. 4.3.6). In 2004-5, the

municipality undertook the revitalisation project PROREVITA (www.prorevita.pl; Markowski and Stawasz 2007): this

involved two small inner-city areas which were regarded as two of the least attractive residential neighbourhoods.

Newly-built municipal rental housing (so-called TBS) was developed here, and this will remain as rental housing

in the future. Recently, spot gentrification has occurred for individual streets or blocks, and while no large-scale

polarisation exists to date, future polarisation cannot be ruled out.

According to our recent qualitative research in the inner city of Łódź, there are a small number of ‘convinced urbanites’ (i.e. city-minded

people), who deliberately choose to live in housing in the old built-up areas, close to the city centre (in Łódź, the centre is defined by

Piotrkowska Street). Many of the new, post-privatisation owners do not, however, have the money to renovate their flats and even less the

staircases, roofs or facades. The same is true for the municipality. As a result, many old houses are in a very bad state of repair. Therefore,

the biggest problem today for the old built-up areas is the on-going dilapidation and decay. Representatives of the municipality estimate

that some 500 buildings are uninhabitable. Yet, in spite of this, about 300 of them flats are currently occupied. Poor condition and decay

is the main reason for housing demolition (in contrast with Leipzig, where supply surplus is the reason). Between 1988 and 2002, a

remarkable 3,300 flats, or 9% of the inner-city housing stock, was demolished.

6 Info

rmat

ion

give

n by

repr

esen

tativ

es o

f the

City

of Ł

ódź

in O

ctob

er 2

007

durin

g ou

r res

earc

h in

the

conD

ENSE

pro

ject

and

take

n fro

m th

e m

unic

ipal

web

site

ww

w.u

ml.l

odz.

pl.

Łódź

Despite recent in-migration, the old built-up areas of the inner city are still

regarded as some of the least attractive housing areas in the city. According

to local experts, none of the large housing estates are, or are likely to be, as

endangered as the inner city housing. Major initiatives are therefore necessary

to preserve the built-up inner city heritage of Łódź.

Figure 4.3.5: Renovated and reused textile factory Figure 4.3.6: Refurbished inner-city housing

Manufaktura (Photo: A. Haase 2007) stock (Photo: A. Haase 2007)

50 51

How does the City of Łódź deal with demographic changes in the field of housing?7

The City of Łódź is aware of the problems of local demographic change,

although in contrast to neighbouring Germany, few like to talk about population

‘shrinkage’. One reason is that, in Poland, population decline is often known as

“depopulation” or “demographic de-pression” which have negative connotations

(e.g. Kowalski and Śleszyński 2006, 111; Obra-niak 1997). The other main reason

is that the housing market and the demographic reality continue to be in sharp

contrast: in spite of the significant population decline, a housing shortage

prevails, and there are new housing construction projects both on the fringes of

the city and also inside the city boundaries. Apart from the housing shortage, the

topics that are currently at the top of the municipal agenda are, firstly, the poor

condition of housing in the old built-up areas, and secondly, the revitalisation

of the central parts of the city. This revitalisation work includes streetscapes,

housing, urban infrastructure and green spaces. Major regeneration projects are

planned for some of the attractively-located areas of the inner city (e.g. the area

around the railway station Fabryczna), where there is scope to establish new

cultural and commercial centres. Other, residential, areas that are poorer and less

attractive are shown to be stagnating. However, some of them could undergo

processes of gentrification and the construction of loft housing over the next

years.

6 Info

rmat

ion

give

n by

repr

esen

tativ

es o

f the

City

of Ł

ódź

in O

ctob

er 2

007

durin

g ou

r res

earc

h in

the

conD

ENSE

pro

ject

and

take

n fro

m th

e m

unic

ipal

web

site

ww

w.u

ml.l

odz.

pl.

Bolog

na

Bologna is Italy’s 7th largest city in terms of the number of inhabitants, and is the regional centre

of Emilia Romagna. In 2007, the city had a population of some 372,000 living in an area of 140 km2.

Bologna’s conurbation has a population of some 1 million. The city has several nicknames: la rossa,

the red one, referring to the colour of many of its historic buildings; la dotta, the learned one,

because it has the oldest university in Europe, founded in 1088; and la grassa, the fat one, which

relates to the city’s rich cuisine. Having been a trading centre for centuries, with a tradition of

hosting trade fairs, the city developed as one of Italy’s major industrial and transport hubs during

the late 19th century.

Today, the university, with its 96,000 or so students, has a considerable impact on the city’s urban

life and local economy. For example, the Declaration of Bologna was signed here, in 1999, by

European Ministers of Education attending the first meeting of the Bologna Process (which aims to

unify European Higher Education).

Bologna was declared the European City of Culture for 2000. It is characterised by a historic city

centre, featuring one of the largest collections of architectural heritage buildings in Europe. In

addition, Bologna is famous for its portici, a vast network of covered arcades or walkways, with an

overall length of more than 40 km.

Demographic development between decline, ‘recovery’ and ageing

During the last few decades, urban Italy, and in particular Bologna’s administrative region of Emilia Romagna, has

experienced similar population trends to other parts of Europe, including ageing. In addition, the region has seen more

profound demographic changes than other parts of Europe: for example, declining marriage rates, later marriage, the

postponement and also the decline of childbearing, as well as the emergence of smaller households.

At the same time, there have been the dynamics of suburbanisation and counterurbanisation. People

have moved out of the city into the surrounding areas or to the suburbs, due to changing employment

and housing patterns as well as broader socio-economic trends (Buzar et al. 2007a, 69-81). However,

the inner city of Bologna has started to change its demographic make-up, even though there is still

a continuous population outflow to peripheral parts of the city or to adjacent settlements. (The inner

suburban zone around Bologna is estimated to have some 275,000 inhabitants.) The last ten years or so

have seen the emergence of new migration flows, as the city centre and the areas around it have begun

to attract ever-increasing numbers of new residents.

After World War II, Bologna experienced an initial phase of population decline during the 1950s, and

then, after a short period of recovery in the early 1960s, there has been a second phase of population

decline, beginning in the mid-1960s. This second phase of decline lasted until 2004. The current

population is 140,000 less than the population in the early 1950s. The historic city centre lost slightly more

inhabitants than the outer areas of the city. However, from 2004 onwards, the number of inhabitants

has oscillated between 372,000 and 374,000, which points to some stabilisation after decades of

population decline (Fig. 4.4.1). This trend is also positively interpreted by Bologna’s municipal experts.

4_Profiles of five cities 4.4_Bologna

52 53

It needs to be stressed that, for Bologna, there is a significant difference between its resident population and its daytime

population. In the daytime, the city has an additional 140,000 people (about 100,000 commuters and 40,000 students)

who are working or studying in the city but do not live there (Comune di Bologna 2005a, 1). So during the day, the city is

host to about half a million people.

Figure 4.4.1_Bologna – population development 1973–2007

Source: Comune di Bologna 2007a

The long-term population decline of Bologna since World War II was caused partly by a surplus of deaths over births and

partly by out-migration. Yet, while the surplus of deaths over births has remained constant since 1966, in-migration from

other Italian regions has played an increasing role for Bologna. From 2001 to 2006, the city experienced more in- than out-

migration (a net gain of 21,000 inhabitants). This outweighed the negative natural population changes of 2001-2006, and,

as a result, the city saw a net population gain of 13,300 people (Fig. 4.4.2).

Figure 4.4.2_Bologna – natural population development and migration balance 1991-2007

natural population development migration balanceSources: Comune di Bologna 2008d and 2008k

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

-2,000

-4,000

-6,00019991997 200319961995 20021992 1993 1994 20011991 20001998 2004 2005 2006 2007

-2,9

85-2,0

88

1,30

5

-2,6

60

-1,1

11

-2,8

32

-1,6

59

-2,8

76

596

-2,6

85

-2,3

61

1,51

6

1,04

2

-2,7

97

4,44

0

-1,7

85

-62

-2,0

67

-3,5

40 -2,7

99

1,01

2

-2,2

09

1,24

1

-2,6

16

2,80

7-2

,286

2,52

3

-1,6

37

1,24

8-1

,930

1,11

7-1

,834

984

-1,7

54

Inha

bita

nts

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

Inha

bita

nts

1973

493,

535

1976

484,

704

1981

461,

765

1986

432,

406

1991

406,

291

1996

385,

136

200137

8,35

62006

373,

026

2007

372,

256

Bolog

na

Currently, Bologna is no longer a ‘shrinking’ city. From 2006 to 2007, for example, the city only lost some

770 inhabitants (0.2% of the total population; Comune di Bologna 2007a). Bologna’s positive migration

balance is mainly due to people migrating out of other Italian regions (Mezzogiorno).To a lesser but

increasing extent, population gains are also due to international immigration which has been an

important factor during the last few decades. From 1989 to 2008, the number of foreign nationals living

in Bologna increased from 3,400 to 36,000 (9% of the total population; Comune di Bologna 2008a, see

also info-box > page 59).

The majority of people now living in Bologna were not born in the city (2004: 64% of

inhabitants not born in Bologna vs. 36% born in Bologna; Comune di Bologna 2005a,

3). Thus, for many inner-city districts, a considerable proportion of residents living

there today have only moved to Bologna over the last decade.

In general, the large historic city centre (centro storico) experienced only negligible population losses

between 1993 and 2003. As Buzar et al. (2007a) underline, between 1999 and 2003 the inner city of

Bologna “had the highest net inflow of population of the entire municipality” (ibid., 71): this was except

for one small suburban area. This inflow indicates a new trend, discussed below under the heading

‘reurbanisation’.

1964 was the year of a ‘baby boom’, with 7,083 children born in Bologna. The number of births then declined continuously

until the early 1980s (it reached its lowest value in 1981 with 2,318 births); the birth rate then remained at a very low

level until 1994. Since then, however, the birth rate has undergone a slight but steady increase (from 2,193 births in 1994

to 3,013 in 2007; Comune di Bologna 2008b); and by 2007, the number of births was 17% higher than 10 years earlier

(Comune di Bologna 2008b).

The last few decades have also seen a postponement of childbearing: the mean age of mothers at

first birth increased from 30.7 years in 1991 to 33.2 years in 2007. The overall share of older parents has

also increased. In terms of natural population development during the last 10 years, statistics show

that on average, there were 2,000 to 3,000 more deaths than births each year. In 2007, this natural

population decline decreased to only 1,754 more deaths than births, due to a slightly higher birth rate

and a slightly lower death rate. In addition, there was a positive migration balance (a net in-migration

of 984 people). As a result, 2007 is being described as a “year of optimism”.

Like most other European cities, Bologna faces an ageing of its residential population.

This overall trend is reflected in the increasing share of older people from 1991 to

2007 (23% were aged 65+ in 1991 versus 27% aged 65+ in 2007); and a simultaneous

decline in people of working age (from 68% to 62%). During the same period, the

share of children (0-14 years) remained more or less stable with a slight positive

tendency (rising from 8% to 10%). As a consequence, the mean age of the population

increased slowly but continuously: from 46.4 years in 1991 to 47.7 years in 2002. Since

then, it has remained more or less stable (Comune di Bologna 2007a; Table 4.4.1).

54 55

Table 4.4.1_Bologna – demographic indicators of ageing 1991-2006

1991 1996 2001 2006

Percentage of total population aged:

0-14 8.3 8.5 9.5 10.3

15-64 68.2 58.9 64.2 62.6

65+ 23.5 25.8 26.3 27.0

Number of persons aged:

65-79 73,164 72,568 71,513 68,543

80+ 22,201 26,620 27,848 32,281

Total 65+ 95,365 99,188 99,361 100,824

Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64) 12.19 14.45 14.82 16.50

Age dependency rate (65+/15-64) 34.41 43.74 40.89 43.15

Index of ageing (65+/0-14) 283.1 303.5 276.8 262.1

Average age 46.1 47.3 47.6 47.7

Source: Comune di Bologna 2007a

This tendency towards decelerated ageing is also reflected in the index of ageing (the ratio

of older people to children): this increased steadily until 1993, but has decreased during

the last 12 years (80 in 1973; 303 in 1996; 262 in 2006; Table 4.4.1). As for the inner city, the

index of ageing showed a similar trend but it has been decreasing since 1991 and showed

a significantly lower value (246) than the city as a whole (266) in 2004. However, further and

more dynamic ageing is expected in the future. Since Bologna is the workplace for many

commuters, and since its amenities are used by both the urban and suburban population,

ageing in the suburban zones and the wider hinterland must be taken into account when

looking at the implications of demographic change for the city, its housing market and

infrastructures.

Future population development

There are three key population projections for Bologna, based on optimistic, intermediate and pessimistic scenarios

(Comune di Bologna 2008c and Fig. 4.4.3). The optimistic scenario predicts a continuous population growth by 2021 (from

374,000 in 2008 to 386,000 in 2021); the intermediate scenario predicts population stagnation at 374,000; and the pessimistic

scenario shows a slight population decrease to 360,000 inhabitants by 2021. However, all three scenarios show that for

the Bologna region as a whole, population growth is likely until 2013. After that date, the pessimistic forecast shows

population decline in the areas surrounding Bologna as well. Different assumptions about migration account for most

of the differences in the forecasts. While the “optimistic” scenario is based on a steadily growing net in-migration, the

“intermediate” sees a steady net in-migration, and the “pessimistic” sees a decreasing net in-migration which approaches

zero by 2021.

Bolog

na

Figure 4.4.3_Population scenarios until 2021

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

optimistic scenario intermediate scenario pessimistic scenario

Source: Comune di Bologna 2008c

Households and housing market: facts and figures

According to Bologna’s municipal figures, the number of households in the city, in terms of social and economic units

(famiglia, see Addendum), has been continuously increasing since 1993 (from just under 174,000 to about 194,000 in

2007). This represents a growth of 12% (Comune di Bologna 2008l). During that time, households have become smaller

(from 2.24 to 1.89 persons on average), and, due to their structure, more diverse.

However, when looking at the use of the housing stock, in 2007 there were only 178,350 homes. Therefore,

some 16,000 homes were inhabited by more than one household (famiglia) known as ménages in the

municipal statistics (see Comune di Bologna 2007c and Addendum). As elsewhere, different studies use

different definitions of ‘household’; and while the mean size of a famiglia (family) was 1.89 people in 2007,

that of a ménage (people sharing kitchen, bathroom, and meals) was bigger (2.07 people).

The share of one-person households has continued to grow in Bologna. In 2007, there were 92,644 one-person house-

holds (famiglia), representing 47.6% of all households, i.e. almost one in two households (Table 4.4.2). However, for a more

realistic picture of the share of people living alone, one has to look at the share of one-person ménages. At 39% it is con-

siderably lower (approximately 70,000 persons).

Table 4.4.2_Bologna – indicators of the housing market 1991, 2001 and 2007

1991 2001 2007

Total resident population 406,291 378,356 372,256

Total number of dwellings not available 194,862 not available

Total number of households (famiglia) 180,513 185,569 194,708

Total number of one-person households (famiglia) 60,062 76,750 92,644

Share of one-person households (famiglia; %) 33.3 41.4 47.6

Average household size (famiglia) 2.22 2.01 1.89

Living space per inhabitant in m² 35.0 40.2 not available

Sources: Comune di Bologna 2007a, 2007b, 2008l (data partly differing from tables in Addendum due to different data sources: above: municipal data, in Addendum:

Urban Audit and others)

390,000

385,000

380,000

375,000

370,000

365,000

360,000

355,000

Inha

bita

nts

56 57

The difference between the numbers of households using the famiglia definition of a household,

and the numbers referring to the ménage definition, is mainly due to the fact that a lot of younger

people (students and young professionals) are sharing a home with others because of Bologna’s

expensive housing costs. This is particularly true in the city centre (centro storico) and the larger inner

city (see also Buzar et al. 2007a, 72-4). However, there are also multi-generation families living in one

dwelling (mainly adult children and their parents; Comune di Bologna 2004, 14). In 2007, 28% of the

total number of households (famiglie) was made up of two-person households, 15% were 3-person

and 9% were bigger households (Comune di Bologna 2008l). But, interestingly, and contrary to

predominant trends in most West European countries, the number of families with dependent children

increased from 1995 to 2005: from 39,000 to 45,000. Among them, 44% are families with one child,

43% with two, 10% with three and 3% with more than three children (Comune di Bologna 2005b).

Until 1993, the number of households with dependent children saw a decrease, but since then it has

been increasing continuously. In the inner city, the number of households with dependent children

decreased for a little longer, until 1994. But since then, the number of families with dependent children

has been growing here, too.

In terms of its housing market, Bologna is, like Italian cities in general, characterised

by a predominance of owner-occupied housing, and a preference for such hous-

ing. Renting as a form of tenure is much less frequent than, for example, in Leipzig

(Table 4.4.3). According to the census data from 2001, the share of owner-occupied

housing in Bologna was 65% while rental housing was only 29%. The ratio of owner-

occupied housing was lower in the inner city where there is more rental housing

available: 54% was owner-occupied housing compared with 37% rented. This cor-

responds to the higher proportions of young and non-traditional households who

live in the inner city, but do not own a home there: they prefer to rent, either from

the private or the public sector. In different parts of the city, the share of owner-

occupied and rental housing varies: between 74% and 53% for owner-occupied,

and between 38% and 20% for rented, per district (the figures relate to inhabited

dwellings only).

Table 4.4.3_Share of owner-occupied and rental housing stock 2007*

Owner-occupied housing stock Rental housing stock

Inner city 54.2 37.3

Outer urban areas 66.9 27.1

Bologna total 64.9 28.7

Source: Comune di Bologna 2007b; * the category “other tenure” is not displayed

Bolog

na

The census in 2001 counted 21,500 unoccupied dwellings (11% of the total stock). There is no exact

figure for the numbers of vacant dwellings (i.e. dwellings that are available as homes but are vacant),

but it is estimated to be about 7,000 dwellings (3-4% of the total stock). These flats are not rented out,

but instead are kept empty by the owner, either because they are being sold, or because they are in a

bad state of repair (Comune di Bologna 2005b).

According to the census, there were 194,862 dwellings in Bologna in 2001. The average dwelling

had 3.7 rooms and a floor space of 85 m2, and was inhabited by 1.7 people. The mean housing space

per person was 40 m2 (Table 4.4.2 above). In the inner city, dwellings and space per inhabitant are

generally bigger (at 95 m2 and 49 m2, respectively).

Socio-spatially, Bologna is a divided city. The better-off areas with higher housing standards are

situated in the southern part of the city (where there are hills and more greenery), while the traditional

working-class areas are situated close to the industrial zone in the northern part of the city (Comune

di Bologna 2007b). Consequently, the socio-economic status is higher in the south. Residents with

lower socio-economic status tend to live in the north, thus unemployment there is higher and average

incomes are lower. Also, in terms of the size of the dwellings, there is a noticeable south-north gradient.

Inner-city reurbanisation: a new tendency of urban development

Bologna’s urban development in recent years has been shaped by two main processes. On the one hand, there is a

continuing suburbanisation, with households moving from the core of the city to the adjacent areas where new housing is

being built. These new developments are often in the form of densely built, multi-storey housing, but also traditional single-

family houses. On the other hand, during the last few decades, the inner city has been increasingly repopulated by younger

households who are in their majority city-minded and prefer urban living. This is the process known as reurbanisation

(Haase, A. et al. 2006, 168; Buzar et al. 2007a).

Reurbanisation has not only affected the composition of the

population, it also changed the image and social milieu of the

districts. Within the European research project Re Urban Mobil (see

Chapter 3 above), the authors investigated two traditional working-

class districts in more detail: Bolognina and San Donato. These are

situated close to the historic city centre, but separated from it by

the railway. During recent decades, both areas have suffered from

population decline, ageing, and a loss of the traditional

neighbourhood iden-tity. Due to their location on busy main arterial

roads, leading to the city’s adjacent regions, both areas have been

increasingly affected by traffic and noise pollution (Commune di

Bologna 2002, 30-4). Recently, both neighbourhoods have also

faced the immigration of foreign nationals and a rise in younger

households (e.g. students; Comune di Bologna 2004, 4).

58 59

This was also proven by our research in 2003 and 2004 which was mainly based on a

questionnaire survey. We found evidence for recent household-driven reurbanisation

for both these two vibrant and slightly run-down districts. Every third household

had moved in during the last five years. In-migration brought about changes of

household composition, age profile, and social structure (mainly with respect to

educational attainment). There are three predominant types of recently-settled

households: firstly, unrelated adults sharing a flat (36% in Bolognina and 28% in

San Donato; Fig. 4.4.4); secondly, households with dependent children (families as

well as single parent households; 32 and 26%, respectively); and thirdly, one-person

households (although this was not evident from the questionnaire data7). Moreover,

55% of the newcomers were under 40 years old.

Figure 4.4.4_Household types of reurbanites in % (n=99; based on survey data)

other types of flat household young young households sharing with children couple one-person household household

Household types of reurbanites (n=99)

Source: Haase, A. et al. 2006

The fact that there was also a significant number of young families who have chosen to live in the inner-city

areas of Bolognina and San Donato, rather than moving to the suburbs, should encourage the municipality

to foster the regeneration of inner-city areas and make them more family-adequate. Last but not least, the

influx of immigrants has been crucial in terms of compensating for the rapid ageing process in these areas

(see info-box).

7 The

shar

e of

one

-per

son

hous

ehol

ds in

bot

h ar

eas i

s con

sider

ably

hig

her t

han

the

shar

e sh

own

amon

g th

e re

spon

dent

s; th

is re

late

s to

stric

t rul

es o

f dat

a pr

otec

tion

in It

aly

and

corre

spon

ding

att

itude

s of t

he

popu

latio

n (H

aase

, A. e

t al. 2

006,

171

-2, 1

74).

40

30

20

10

0

Bolog

na

Info-box: International immigration: a major factor of urban development in Bologna

Bologna has seen a significant increase in the rate of international immigration during the last few decades. While in 1989 only 3,402

immigrants were living in the city, the number increased to 35,951 by 31 March 2008 (see also Fig. 4.4.5). At the same time, the share of

children with at least one immigrant parent increased. Compared with the city-wide average, the residential quarters of Bolognina (16%)

and San Donato (12%) were characterised by relatively high immigration during the 1990s. Both are inner-city areas, formerly populated

by predominantly working-class residents (Haase, A. et al. 2005, 113-7). Generally, foreign nationals are overrepresented in the northern

parts of Bologna whereas in the better-off southern residential areas, their share is considerably lower (Fig. 4.4.6). In early 2008, the majority

of international immigrants originated from Romania (4,171 persons), the Philippines (3,760), Bangladesh (3,012) and Morocco (2,862).

Other countries of origin were Albania, China, Ukraine, Moldova, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Poland, the former Serbia-Montenegro, Peru

and Eritrea. In terms of their age structure, the foreign nationals are a very young population. By 31 March 2008, their mean age was 32.1

years and thus far below that of the total population (47.7 years). Among Bologna’s residents aged up to 24 years, 15% are foreign nationals

(compared with 9% in the total population; Comune di Bologna 2008a). For Bologna, immigration decisively contributes to a reduction in

ageing and to inner-city repopulation. The overwhelming majority of immigrants live in one-person households and share the dwelling

with others; and many immigrants live in substandard housing conditions.

Our research surveys and interviews in Bolognina and San Donato showed that rising immigration is perceived in a mainly negative light

by the residents in the affected areas. Mostly, this issue is mentioned as one of the reasons why people would not recommend to friends

that they should move to these districts, or when giving reasons for a worsening situation in recent years. The main problems consist of

differences in the organisation of daily life and a lack of language skills among both Italian and immigrant inhabitants. There is also a lack

of knowledge about each others living circumstances and culture.

However, at the city level, local politicians have started to react to the steady increase of international immigrants. Some 10 years ago, a formal

political institution was founded in Bologna: a forum of foreign civic associations. It encompasses 57 associations; and a body of 144

delegates works in a ‘parliament’ that meets twice a year to discuss any problems and the possible solutions. In 1999, in the district of

San Donato, the intercultural Zonarelli centre was founded, which includes a special office for migration issues. In addition, an up-to-

date list of all foreign associations in Bologna, and the issues they deal with, is accessible to everyone via the municipal website. Hence,

immigrants in Bologna have quite a good network of advice and information across the city.

Figure 4.4.5_Development of immigrants’ population Figure 4.4.6_Share of immigrants in Bologna’s

in Bologna from 1989 to 2007 (as of 31/12) urban districts in 2008

Source: Comune di Bologna 2008a Source: Comune di Bologna 2008a

60 61

How does the City of Bologna deal with demographic changes in the field of housing?8

This section, on how Bologna is dealing with demographic changes in terms of

housing, presents selected results of expert interviews from our 2002-2005 research

for the Re Urban Mobil project. It also includes findings from the report “I dati in

sintesi” (Comune di Bologna 2005a) which discusses the challenges of future

planning with respect to demographic changes.

In the interviews conducted in 2004, local experts mentioned demographic change

as one of the major challenges for Bologna’s urban development (Haase, A. et al.

2005, 117-9).

In particular, the following issues were highlighted:

- the ongoing process of ageing of the residential population, especially in certain districts, e.g. San

Donato;

- the rising heterogeneity of people living together in a neighbourhood, due to demographic change,

recent in-migration and increasing immigration, especially in those areas where students and

immigrants meet older people (including ‘frail’ older people) and long-term inhabitants, with the

resulting diversity of requirements for housing and amenities, on a small scale;

- the consequences of immigration, which is also regarded as a chance to compensate for the ageing

processes (“demographic resource”);

- the stabilisation of working-class districts like Bolognina and San Donato, where we observed not only

shifts in the residential structure, but also a loss of the traditional identity of the areas; the experts

also underlined the advantages of these neighbourhoods (central location, rental housing, moderate

rents, smaller flats etc.) for different newcomers (e.g. low-income households, students, single parents

and foreign nationals);

- the lack of interest of young people in neighbourhood development and engagement in

neighbourhood activities;

- the necessity to improve of the residential environment, especially in the inner city and the northern

parts of the city, to keep these areas attractive for residential use; problems of noise, traffic and lack of

greenery should in particular be tackled by future policies.

The 2005 report “I dati in sintesi” also discusses the need for the city to adjust to

demographic changes, especially with respect to ageing. It underlines the

importance of age-group-specific services and amenities, and emphasises the

need for policies for older people, but also for children and families (in particular to

encourage them to remain in the city), and for immigrants (see info-box above in

page 59).

8 Info

rmat

ion

from

our

rese

arch

200

2-20

05 a

nd ta

ken

from

the

mun

icip

al w

ebsit

e w

ww

.com

une.

bolo

gna.

it.

Live

rpoo

l

In 2007, Liverpool celebrated its 800th anniversary. It is the UK’s sixth largest city, with some 440,000

inhabitants and an area of 111 km². It is also Britain’s second largest export port (after London), and is

famous for its soccer clubs and vibrant music scene. The popularity of The Beatles and other music bands

has contributed to Liverpool’s success as a tourist destination. Liverpool was named European Capital

of Culture for 2008, along with the City of Stavanger in Norway. Its maritime heritage, together with its

economic transformation over the past 60 years, are reflected in the cityscape. In 2004, the famous River

Mersey waterfront, with its Pier Head and so-called ‘Three Graces’ (The Royal Liver Building, the Cunard

Building and the Port of Liverpool Building), was made a UNESCO World Heritage site. Liverpool’s three

universities, with around 40,000 students, are a further major factor in the city’s development (LCC 2001).

Population trends – rapid growth, long-term decline and recent stabilisation

Liverpool’s population trends need to be seen in a global geo-political context and are directly linked with

the economic development of the city. For a long time, Liverpool’s docks played an important role as a

traditional gateway for goods as well as for people, between the UK, Europe and other parts of the world.

The growth of trade, and thus jobs, in the 18th and especially in the 19th centuries, brought massive

population expansion in the city. In just 100 years, Liverpool’s population increased almost tenfold: from

77,000 in 1801 to 704,000 in 1901. In the 1930s, the population reached its peak: 870,000 inhabitants lived

in the city, and 1.8 million inhabitants in the conurbation (Merseyside). At that time the city was known as

the second city of the empire, after London (Misselwitz 2004).

This phase of growth stopped in the late 1930s, at the end of the interwar period, when Britain’s economic centre shifted

towards London and the south-eastern part of the country. During World War II, Liverpool and the Merseyside conurbation

were one of the most bombed areas after London. Many of Liverpool’s historic buildings, as well as a large number of homes,

were either destroyed or heavily damaged. Almost 4,000 people were killed, some 3,500 were seriously injured, and over

70,000 became homeless.

The years immediately after World War II were characterised by reconstruction and a short phase of

economic upturn; employment reached its peak in the early 1960s. However, increased maritime

productivity (larger ships, faster turnaround, more containerisation), falling demand for imports and

exports (due to the decline in manufacturing in its hinterland), and an unsuitable geographical location

from which to exploit the expanding trade between the UK and the rest of Europe, then resulted in a

massive decline in employment in Liverpool’s port and its associated industries.

4_Profiles of five cities 4.5_Liverpool

62 63

Between 1966 and 1978, Liverpool lost 20% of its employment base; a further 18% was lost between 1978 and 1981 (ibid.).

Within twenty years, the mono-functional maritime economy had collapsed, and by 1971, the city had lost more than half

of its manufacturing industry (Couch 2003). The consequence was long-term population shrinkage. Between 1961 and 1981,

Liverpool lost one third of its population; and between 1981 and 2001 the population decreased by a further 13%. As a result,

the population has fallen to around 440,000. The scale of this population decline is comparable with that of Leipzig. It is also

worth noting, that in spite of suburbanisation and urban sprawl, the total population of the Merseyside conurbation has also

fallen, to about 1.4 million in 2006, as a result of the high out-migration to other regions (Couch et al. 2005). Fig. 4.5.1 shows

the population development of Liverpool between 1961 and 2006.

Figure 4.5.1_Liverpool – population development 1961-2006

Source: LCC 2007a, UK Office for National Statistics 1991-2008

The population decline in Liverpool (as well as in the Merseyside conurbation) is exclusively a result of out-migration. Even

during the dramatic population shrinkage of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, births exceeded deaths. Figure 4.5.2 shows both

natural population development and migration balance in Liverpool between 1991 and 2006.

Figure 4.5.2_Liverpool – natural population development and migration balance 1991–2006

natural population development migration balance Source: UK Office for National Statistics 1991-2008 (no data available for the year 1997)

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

Inha

bita

nts

1961

745,

000

1971

610,

000

1981

510,

000

1991

474,

500

1996

468,

000

2001

439,

300

200643

6,10

0

2,000

1,000

0

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000

-4,000

-5,0001999 200319961995 20021992 1993 1994 20011991 20001998 2004 2005 2006

915

-1,8

00

-2,8

00

67

-2,6

00

320

-2,3

00

651

-267

-2,9

00

-3,4

00

28

-2,6

00

-252

-3,2

00

-260

-1,5

0032

8

-2,4

00-6

5

-3,2

00

201

-3,3

00

28

-3,8

00

167

-2,8

00

544

-2,5

00

881

Inha

bita

nts

Live

rpoo

l

The fact that there has been either a positive or an equally balanced natural population

development over the past twenty years, contributes to the fact that, in contrast to similar

shrinking cities in other European countries, the age structure of Liverpool in the last few

decades has not changed dramatically. In fact, the proportion of each age group has hardly

changed at all in the last two decades (Table 4.5.1). This phenomenon can also be explained by

the in-migration of younger inhabitants (15-29 years) for educational reasons. In this context

the University of Liverpool, with more than 20,000 students, plays an important role. In all other

age groups, more people migrated out of the city than migrated in, even among the 60+ age

group. In addition, the migration trend over previous decades has caused a reduction in the

current size of older people (Table 4.5.1).

Nevertheless, 15% of Liverpool’s population is 65+, and the number of people aged 75+ is higher than the national

average (UK Office for National Statistics 2006, LCC 2006a). Over the next few years, the number of older people aged

80+ will increase as a result of rising life expectancy. Furthermore, the post-World War I ‘baby boomers’, who were born

in the 1920s and 1930s, are entering this age group. So, there is a growing need for high quality services and housing

for older people.

Table 4.5.1_Liverpool – demographic indicators of ageing 1991-2006

1991 1996 2001 2006

Share of total population aged:

0-14 20.0 20.2 20.1 17.8

15-65 64.2 64.9 64.6 67.3

65+ 15.8 14.9 15.3 14.9

Number of persons aged:

65-74 42,400 39,200 37,600 35,100

75+ 32,500 30,500 29,400 29,700

Total 65+ 74,900 67,700 67,000 64,800

Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64) 31.2 31.2 31.1 26.4

Age dependency rate (65+/15-64) 24.6 23.0 23.6 22.1

Index of ageing (65+/0-14) 78.8 73.6 75.9 83.4

Source: UK Office for National Statistics 1991-2008

Another important and growing group within Liverpool’s population in recent years is the Black and Racial Minority (BRM)

community. They grew from 3.8% of the total population in 1991 to 8.2% in 2001. One reason is the increased immigration of

refugees and asylum seekers (LCC 2006a).

64 65

Demographic change in Liverpool has led to new household structures. As has been seen elsewhere, there

has been a steady decrease in household size, and an increase in one-person households. The Census in 2001

showed an average household size of about 2.3 people. At that time, more than one third of the households

consisted of one person. In addition, non-traditional household types increased in importance (Table 4.5.2).

16% of the total households were single retired adults without children; and 12% were one-parent households

with dependent children.

Table 4.5.2_Liverpool – household indicators in 2001 (census data)

Total Share

Resident population 439,200 -

Number of households 187,900 -

Number of one-person households 69,400 36.9%

One-person household: retirement age and no children 29,700 15.8%

One-parent households with dependent child(ren) 24,000 11.5%

One-parent households with no dependent child(ren) 9,900 5.3%

Average household size 2.3 -

Source: LCC 2001

Liverpool’s economic decline in the last few decades has also had socio-economic consequences. To date,

compared with the average for the UK as a whole, Liverpool has higher unemployment, a higher proportion

of people claiming benefits, and lower household incomes (LCC 2008a, 2008b). At the end of 2006, the

unemployment rate was more than 26% (UK as a whole: 14.7%). All in all, the city is one of the most deprived

boroughs in the western EU (LCC 2006a).

But in the mid-1990s there was an economic turnaround, and over the last 10 years Liverpool has been

characterised by economic growth. This has given hope for population stabilisation, or even growth, as well as

improved social conditions. Over the period 1995-2005, the Gross Value Added (GVA) increased by some 65%.

The average GVA growth rate per year was 5.1%. Between 1998 and 2006 the total number of jobs increased

by about 1.4% and the average annual growth in employment in the so-called knowledge economy was 2.1%

(LCC 2008b). As a result, while there is still a negative migration balance, out-migration has decreased and in-

migration has increased. Currently, particularly in the 25-29 age group, net migration is positive.

Liverpool City Council is aiming for an end to long-term population shrinkage by 2010, with a key target of achieving a

population of 500,000 by 2013 (LCC 2006a). Future projections for Liverpool (based on sub-national population projections),

forecast a population increase to more than 470,000 by 2029 (LCC 2006b). However, this depends on whether the city can offer

attractive jobs and living conditions. The quality of housing will become increasingly important for the future development

of the city.

Live

rpoo

l

Housing market: facts and figures

The demographic and socio-economic trends described above will have various effects

on the future local housing market and housing requirements. In Liverpool, there are

very diverse and complex patterns of communities and groups that need specific

support. Dealing with multiple social problems is one of the main challenges for future

housing strategies. In addition, the housing needs of younger and highly-qualified

people, as well as transient households, must be met.

Before these factors and Liverpool’s actual housing strategies are discussed, the specific

local features and current characteristics of Liverpool’s housing situation must be out-

lined briefly. Table 4.5.3 gives a short overview of Liverpool’s dwelling stock by tenure,

conditions, demand and vacancy: for 2001, 2003 and 2006.

Table 4.5.3_Liverpool - Housing stock by tenure, conditions and demand in 2001, 2003 and 2006

2001 2003 2006

Housing Stock

Total dwellings 206,308 207,054 209,500

Local Authority (LA) dwellings 35,859 21,606 17,379

Registered Social Landlords (RSL) dwellings 32,065 44,870 43,250

Owner-occupied and private rented dwellings 134,629 148,871 148,871

Housing Conditions

Total unfit dwellings 17,947 18,791 21,506

Unfit LA dwellings 4,647 3,714 2,310

Unfit RSL dwellings 1,530 2,330 2,406

Unfit owner-occupied and private rented dwellings 11,578 11,653 16,790

Housing Demand

Total number of dwellings classed as low demand 66,960 57,635 33,007

LA dwellings classed as low demand 14,269 8,210 3,481

RSL dwellings classed as low demand 7,691 4,425 1,017

Owner-occupied and private rented dwellings classed as low demand 45,000 45,000 28,509

Housing Vacancy

Vacant dwellings in total 18,666 15,692 13,880

Vacant LA dwellings 2,743 2,385 1,212

Vacant RSL dwellings 2,419 3,186 2,366

Vacant owner-occupied and private rented dwellings 11,979 9,027 10,302

Source: UK Office for National Statistics 2008a

66 67

First of all, Liverpool’s housing market is characterised by two different sectors. On the one hand, there is the social rented

housing sector that belongs to the Local Authority and to Registered Social Landlords (i.e. non-profit independent housing

organisations, registered with the Housing Corporation under The Housing Act 1996). On the other hand, there is the private

housing sector (owner-occupied or rented). At the beginning of the new millennium (2001), there was an approximate 30:70

split between the social rented sector and the private (i.e. owner-occupied and private rental) sector, based on the number

of the dwellings. Looking from a household perspective, the Census in 2001 showed that more than 30% of Liverpool’s

households lived in a social rented dwelling, and 13% in a private rented dwelling (LCC 2001). Thus Liverpool has a large social

rented housing sector, and scores below UK average on owner-occupancy.

During recent years, the social rented housing sector has seen some fundamental changes. Whereas, until the

early 1990’s, Liverpool City Council was the main supplier of rented accommodation in the city, all of Liverpool’s

housing stock was transferred to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) between 1990 and 2008. These RSLs have

become increasingly important as providers of housing (Table 4.5.3 above), both for those who cannot afford

to buy or rent privately, and for those who need special housing.

The extensive period of depopulation, as a result of the loss of manufacturing and industry since the

1970s, has led to a spiral of decline, especially in the inner city. Many residential districts in Liverpool,

particularly the older inner-city neighbourhoods, which are dominated by pre-1919 terraced buildings,

have been characterised by low demand, high vacancy levels and poor living conditions. The last

Census in 2001 showed that the cross-tenure vacancy levels in the city exceeded 18,600 dwellings (9%

of the housing stock), as a result of economic and population decline over the previous fifty years.

Furthermore, an above-average proportion of all dwellings were classed as unfit (2006:

Liverpool 10.3% of stock, England 4.2% of stock). This means that they fail to meet one

or more of the standard criteria. The criteria include adequate lighting, heating and

ventilation; an adequate supply of clean water; satisfactory facilities for cooking food;

and a suitably-located toilet, and bath or shower (UK Office for National Statistics 2008a).

This applied especially to the social rented housing market. In 2004, 43% of all social

housing was not of a decent standard and did not meet the current statutory minimum

standard for housing. Furthermore, these dwellings were not in a reasonable state of

repair, had no adequate modern facilities and services, or did not provide a sufficient

degree of thermal comfort (LCC 2006a). In 2001, 27% of all dwellings in Liverpool had

no central heating (LCC 2001). A stock condition survey in 2004 calculated that it would

cost £760 million over the next 30 years to bring all dwellings up to a decent standard.

In addition, particularly in the social housing sector, there is a lack of housing which

provides accessibility for people with mobility needs, including wheelchair users (LCC

2006a).

Live

rpoo

l

Altogether, Liverpool is characterised by an unbalanced and highly polarised housing market. Many areas with

empty houses coexist with high-demand residential areas. On the one hand, there are parts of the city which have

been experiencing low (and in some cases rapidly falling) prices, high turnover and increasing vacancy rates; on

the other hand there are new sub-markets which are thriving. Whereas, for example, the City Centre North has

suffered massive depopulation, with the loss of 80-90% of its residents over the past 50 years, other residential

districts have done far better: new homes have appeared in the city centre and at the waterfront, and other areas

have developed steadily or have grown, as a result of an increasing concentration of younger and mobile age

groups.

The living conditions in many residential areas in Liverpool are not in line with the city’s stated fu-

ture objective of being a “Premier European City”. Liverpool City Council recognises the necessity of

providing homes to match the aspirations of people in the 21st century. The aim is to encourage

inhabitants to remain in the city, to work there, and to play a role in improving the economy of

the city. The Council stresses the importance of housing market restructuring and neighbourhood

renewal. In addition, it has underlined the need to create a “Living, Green and Sustainable City”, as well

as good housing conditions, for successful future-orientated urban development. The City Council has

therefore agreed on “Key Strategic Targets” to bring the entire housing stock up to a decent condition.

Most of this improvement will take place in deprived areas and will address the needs of vulnerable

households. One major aim is to reduce the vacancy levels across all types of housing from 9% to 5%

by 2010 (LCC 2006a).

Info-box: Housing market research in Liverpool and Merseyside

To make sure that its housing strategy is backed up by hard facts, Liverpool has had its own housing market research programme since 1999. The City

Council worked with the University of Birmingham’s Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS) as well as with other consultants, and by 2003, a

total of nine reports had been published. The studies focus on different thematic and geographic aspects, and are very important in designing and im-

plementing Liverpool’s housing strategies (Nevin et al. 2001). In addition, in 2007, Fordham Research was commissioned to carry out a Housing Needs

Assessment. This looks at the housing situation, housing preferences and future housing demands, and further supports the Council in its housing and

planning strategies (LCC 2007c).

For more information: http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Housing/Housing_research/index.asp.

Because housing markets do not operate solely within individual local authority

boundaries, there is also a strategic housing and planning research programme for

the whole Merseyside metropolitan area. Studies include the Housing Demand Study

(2003), the Housing Capacity Study (2004), the Social Housing Demand Study (2005)

and the Black and Other Racial Minorities Housing Needs & Aspiration Study (2005)

(LCC 2006a). These reports provide an important basis for the creation of the Housing

Strategy for the Liverpool City Region, which consists of thirteen local authorities (LCC

2007d).

For more information: http://www.merseyside.org.uk/displaypage.asp?page=117.

68 69

How does the City of Liverpool deal with demographic changes in the field of housing? 9

The Key Strategic Targets mentioned above set the context for diversified housing objectives,

programmes and action plans, for both housing sectors (social and private), and also for different

housing zones in the city. In particular, the Housing Market Renewal Initiative (HMRI), focusing on the

inner city, is very important for Liverpool’s housing restructuring activities. In this area, there are 150,000

inhabitants, and 76,000 properties. 80% of these properties are pre-1919 terraced houses, and most

of them are characterised by a high level of unfitness and disrepair (LCC 2003, LCC 2007b). The aim

is to restructure the housing market by the extensive clearance and redevelopment of whole areas.

This involves the purchase of abandoned and unwanted empty homes. These will either be renovated

and sold, or demolished and replaced with new homes, through public/private partnerships (e.g.

Registered Social Landlords - RSLs), funded by a variety of sources.

Another programme is the more socially orientated Local Neighbourhoods Renewal Strategy (LNRS). This deals

with the transformation of the most deprived areas, in terms of closing the gap between the poorest and the most

prosperous neighbourhoods. Five Neighbourhood Renewal Areas (NRAs) were identified, characterised by a faster

population decline than the average for the city overall. In 2000, the Neighbourhood Renewal Areas covered 55%

of Liverpool’s total population. Now, these areas have their own Cluster Strategies and Neighbourhood Action

Plans, to ensure more intensive and comprehensive support. The aim is to develop a robust social and economic

infrastructure, with good quality health, education and transport, safe and high quality physical and social

environments, and decent housing.

In response to demographic change, it is a major challenge to deliver housing quality and choice to Liverpool’s

diverse and complex pattern of communities and vulnerable groups. To achieve its aims, Liverpool City Council

and its partners have created a number of special programmes. These include the Five Year Supporting People

Programme, the Black and Racial Minority Housing Strategy, the Homelessness Strategy and the Fuel Poverty and

Warm Home Strategy.

In summary, during recent years, the condition of the housing in many parts of the

city has improved significantly. But it is estimated that restructuring the entire housing

market will take 15-20 years. Finally, it is worth noting that the housing restructuring

and neighbour hood renewal process in Liverpool and Merseyside are monitored

intensively (see info-box), for evaluation and further improvement.

9 Info

rmat

ion

take

n fro

m L

iver

pool

City

Cou

ncil

2006

: Hou

sing

Stra

tegy

Sta

tem

ent 2

005-

2008

. Liv

erpo

ol (w

ww

.live

rpoo

l.gov

.uk/

Imag

es/t

cm21

-668

83.p

df, d

ata

as o

f 200

2, d

ate

of la

st a

cces

s 20/

08/2

008)

.

5.1_Comparative results

The main constitutive characteristics of urban demographic change are:

> ageing caused by low or “lowest-low fertility” and an increasing life expectancy

> quantitatively: an increasing dominance of smaller households, especially a growing number of one-person households

> qualitatively: the appearance of new household types, a fluidity in household formation and increasing housing mobility

> migration flows in terms of international immigration and emigration as well as in-migration and out-migration to and from

cities

> urban shrinkage in terms of declining population: at different rates, depending on the context

> multi-scale disparities (inner-EU, inter- and intraregional, inter- and intra-urban).

In this study, we investigated these issues and their impact on housing for five European cities. All cities were described

and evaluated according to the same design, with a specific focus on the indicators selected in advance. Table 5.1.1

provides an overview of the local specifics. For each city, a different pattern is seen. Quantitative population development

differs from small growth to dramatic loss. In all cities, ageing and an increase in the number of households are ongoing.

Regarding the average household size, all five cities are experiencing a downward trend. Ethnic diversity is increasing

in Leipzig, Bologna and Liverpool, in terms of a growing number of foreign inhabitants and more ethnic groups living

alongside each other. In Brno, the social and spatial integration of the Roma people is a specific issue. Housing shortage

is a decisive feature in Łódź and Bologna, and is likely to increase further. In Brno, a housing shortage prevails to a certain

degree in specific housing market segments. Suburbanisation continues in all the cities, but to varying extents: whereas in

Brno and Bologna there is a growing tendency for suburbanisation, in Leipzig the process has slowed down. The last line

of the table points to selected local specifics.

Table 5.1.1_Comparison of the cities with regard to recent demographic and housing market trends

Leipzig Brno Łódź Bologna Liverpool

Population size ↗ • ↓ → •

Ageing ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↗Number of households ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Average household size ↘ ↘ ↘ ↘ ↘Ethnic diversity ↑ ↗ - ↑ ↑Housing shortage - ↘ → ↗ -Suburbanisation ↓ ↑ → ↑ →Specifics Housing, Housing market Extremely bad Need for High level

vacancy, blocked by legal state of repair of appropriate unfitness demolition, conditions, exclusion the old building flats, and disrepair reurbanisation of Roma minority stock, technical reurbanisation housing need for demolition vacancy, highly polarised

housing market

Legend: ↑ increasing, ↓ decreasing, ↗ slightly increasing, ↘ slightly decreasing, → stable,

• no clear trend detectable, - feature not relevant

5_Comparisons, conclusions and recommendations

70 71

When looking at the cities in more detail, we can detect varying changes in the number of inhabitants in Leipzig, Brno and Łódź.

The time span, the extent, and the reasons are different. Liverpool and Leipzig have been shrinking for decades; Brno saw a decline

in population particularly in the 1990s; and Łódź has faced population decline since the late 1980s, but to a much higher

extent than Brno. At present, Leipzig is experiencing population stabilisation caused by in-migration. In contrast, Brno is seeing an

increasing birth rate and decreasing out-migration. In the case of Łódź, the emigration to other countries in Western Europe is

important, but reliable data is not available.

Regarding the average age of the population, all cities show a significant increase. The cities are therefore in

line with the overall European trend. But in all five cities, the trend towards an older age profile is modified

by a growing number of students, since all are important university towns. This rejuvenation is especially

visible in selected areas which are favoured residential districts for students. In some cities this trend is

strengthened by the in-migration of young families, couples and other types of household, for example,

in Bologna and Leipzig. Inner-city residential areas, offering appropriate housing in reasonable condition,

combined with urban amenities, are particularly characterised by the trend towards reurbanisation.

All these different demographic trends, as well as the broader socio-economic processes, have contributed to a significant

increase in the number of households: in all five cities this was mainly due to the growing number (and growing share) of one-

person households. In quantitative and qualitative terms, this transformation of household numbers, sizes and structures brings

about important consequences for the local housing markets.

In terms of international immigration, even though the main migration flows are

into the capital cities and their metropolitan areas, for four out of our five case study

cities, the impact of immigration is noticeable. In Leipzig, Bologna and Brno the

picture varies. Leipzig faces a fast growth of ethnic communities but the absolute

share of foreign nationals is still relatively low. In Bologna, legal and illegal

immigrants arrive from across the Mediterranean Sea. In Brno, east European

immigrants have enlarged and diversified the existing ethnic minorities. For

Liverpool, ethnic diversity has always been an important issue, whereas in Łódź, it

is not a topic.

In all cities but Leipzig, housing shortage is a serious problem. In Brno the problem seems to have

decreased in the past few years. In both Liverpool and Łódź, many residential buildings have had to be

demolished, because they were in such a poor state of repair. But after demolition, new housing

construction has started immediately. The Leipzig housing market is dominated by a surplus of supply that

is likely to continue, even though in some sectors in the near future, supply may only just meet demand:

housing in Leipzig is being demolished but is not being replaced; and because of the long-term negative

population projections, the present plans for demolition will increase further. Thus, the phenomenon of

‘life-limited neighbourhoods’ will become a typical feature of the urban landscape, at least in some parts

of Leipzig.

Taking into account broader regional developments, ongoing suburbanisation also needs to be

highlighted. In three of the five cities, it plays an important role in urban development. Suburbanisation is

still a significant process in Bologna, which traditionally has a predominance of owner-occupied housing.

Suburbanisation is also still an important trend in Brno, the process started here at exactly the time that

it slowed down in Leipzig, in 1999/2000. In Liverpool, suburbanisation has a long history and is currently

stable. The extent of residential suburbanisation is determined by economic factors, and has to be tackled

within a regional context. Moreover, demographic change will not stop at the city limits. Suburban

areas will also face ageing and a reduction of household size in the future. Potentially, these demographic

changes in terms of ageing and smaller households will be a limiting factor in further suburbanisation.

5.2_Conclusions

On the basis of the comparative evaluation and interpretation of the data,

the following general conclusions can be made:

- The longevity (‘persistence’) of the physical structure of the cities (urban fabric, housing stock)

contrasts with the rapid demographic changes in the urban population. There is therefore a

permanent need for adaptation and reconstruction.

- Households are a major, and so far under-estimated, driver for change in the housing market, in

terms of demographics. The specific composition of households and their demands decide future

requirements in the housing sector.

- The downsizing of households in all age groups has consequences for the demand for housing as well

as for housing-related services.

- The prevailing demographic feature for European cities is ageing. Future older inhabitants may well

have residential patterns that are different from those of today’s older people. Already today, older

people are more mobile and more active in shaping their housing situations, and are less likely to

move to special homes for the elderly than previous generations of 60+.

- Dealing with the interrelationships between demographic change and housing requires multi-

scale approaches. The spatial aspects include entire cities and agglomerations as well as specific

neighbourhoods and blocks.

- Timing is also important because of the continuing emergence of new living and housing

arrangements. Both households and individuals tend to spend less time in fixed types of living

arrangements, and therefore the number and diversity of housing arrangements in a lifetime is

increasing. As a result, housing needs differentiate, too.

72 73

- Suburbanisation processes depend on specific local circumstances in terms of timing and scope.

Demographic change influences and limits the level of suburbanisation and its characteristics. As the

costs of suburban living are likely to rise (energy, transport etc.), suburbia may, in the future, face out-

migration and ageing and may become a less attractive place to live, with declining property values.

- In the inner cities, in addition to traditional core families, there is a growing number of non-traditional

household types. Their housing demands vary greatly. Families with dependent children, for example,

are looking for housing which provides a combination of urban amenities and suburban housing

qualities.

- Regarding the temporal effects of demographic change, a sudden drop in the birth rate, or a strong

out-migration during a certain period, can cause long-term demographic mismatches, even after

several decades.

- Diverse patterns of immigration and emigration, and of in-migration and out-migration, are affecting

the housing market. According to the specific situation, the processes have different implications.

For example, the socio-spatial integration of ethnic minorities (e. g. Roma people) needs particular

consideration.

- Highlighting the demographic perspective does not mean that the socio-economic background of

residents is being ignored. Also the specific local context has to be considered.

5.3_Recommendations for action

Each aspect of demographic change, and, even more importantly, the interconnections and interrelationships between the

various demographic processes, lead to radical consequences for the housing market. Furthermore, the infrastructures of whole

districts or cities are affected. There is a need for architectural, spatial, supply-related, technical, social, cultural and fiscal adaptation,

to deal with the changes. It is also important to recognise that demographic change can cause alterations in the usage densities

for existing housing stock and services, as well as generating demand for new housing and services.

Policies that aim to respond to demographic change are even more challenged by the increasing mobility and fluidity of

households. New household types in particular are often only transitory users of urban space, and are likely to change their

structure, size and place of residence quite frequently. Demographic change is not a phase that leads to new fixed structures,

but an ever-ongoing process. One of the basic characteristics of the structures that are evolving, regardless of whether they are

households, housing markets or residential patterns, is their flexibility and transience. This results in increasing social and

demographic fragmentation in the urban space.

In order to respond to these challenges and to enable these topics to attain a more

prominent position on the European agenda, we provide recommendations, as follows, on

three levels: for EU policies, for future research, and for cities.

Recommendations for EU policies

1_ Ageing and its social consequences need more attention in European programmes and funding.

Population ageing represents the key European mega-trend, also in the cities. Higher life

expectancy leads to a growing group of old and very old people, both female and male. At the

same time, family ties become weaker and family networks are spatially spread more widely,

because of increasing residential mobility and migration processes.

2_ An increased risk of poverty of older people is a Europe-wide matter which also has to be con-

sidered at the local level, in terms of quality of life and appropriate housing. But many cities are

overstretched by this new challenge. EU support is vital, in terms of knowledge-exchange on

best practices and also in terms of specific funding.

3_ Urban shrinkage needs to be accepted as one development trajectory just like urban growth.

Already for many years, cities have been facing periods of population decline, in addition to eras

of expansion. However, due to strong competition between cities, the growth paradigm is still

the predominant pattern steering the urban development strategies. Consequently, shrinking

cities now need even more attention and support for their specific demands in terms of policies

and governance.

4_ The population decline in many European cities requires urban planning and policies to be

rethought. Vacant housing in particular might well become an increasing phenomenon, since

building activities depend largely on the interests of private investors and developers. In some

places, vacant housing in suburbia will evolve as a new challenge.

5_ EU policies need to take an anticipating (‘counter-cyclical’) approach and tackle issues which

are apparently not yet critical (e.g. ageing suburbia). In addition, the increased availability of

demographic prognoses highlights the importance of paying attention to the long-term effects

and possible future challenges. Here, the demographic debate converges with the challenge of

sustainability.

Recommendations for future research

The research on demographic change and its impacts on housing is still at an initial stage. To deal with the demographic

challenges and to answer related questions on the European scale, detailed comparative and cross-cultural analyses and

evaluations are necessary. These will contribute to the understanding of demographic change and housing, as well as providing

added value for European cities. Nevertheless, it should be recognised that comparative studies need not necessarily be on a

large scale, especially when new phenomena are to be explored in depth. More small- and medium-sized research projects,

limited to a comparison of just 2-4 cases, are needed. Larger projects run the risk of being very costly, and do not necessarily

provide a more thorough insight.

74 75

In our view, there is a need for more research into the following areas:

1_ Ageing and housing: This topic has become prominent in recent research, but studies have mainly

focused on the perspective of older people themselves and their perceived needs if they intend to

age ‘in place’. Investigations from the perspective of cities and neighbourhoods are needed.

Relevant research questions are for example: What new residential patterns will evolve? What

conflicting priorities are to be expected and where? Will the next generation of older people have

the same mobility as today’s generation? Also, more differentiated investigations of changing

housing and service needs are necessary.

2_ Non-traditional household types: A deeper insight is needed into the development and behaviour

of new household types and their impact on the housing market, not least for landlords and housing

companies to ensure they can plan appropriately.

Relevant research questions are for example: What types of households will occur and when? And

what kind of housing mobility and socio-spatial patterns can be expected?

3_ Housing flexibility: It will be important to understand in more detail the dynamics involved in

matching housing availability to changing household types.

Relevant research questions are for example: How flexible can the housing market be? How easily

can available dwellings be adapted to meet changing demand driven by changing household

arrangements? What are the expected implications for the urban fabric?

4_ City ‘perforation’ and ‘life-limited neighbourhoods’: New spatial structures in the cities as a result of

rapid population change and changing housing needs should be considered as an opportunity to

improve housing conditions for a range of household types and age groups.

5_ New migration patterns: Immigration and emigration together with in- and out-migration influence

the local housing situation. More research is needed on patterns of seasonal, short-term and

mid-term job-related migration, and the consequences of this.

6_ Unused potential of multi- and interdisciplinary approaches: If thematic lines of demographic change

and housing are integrated with multi- or even interdisciplinary approaches, this would provide

a more comprehensive picture of urban change. Relevant research topics relate, for example, to

the relationship between demographic change and the labour market, demographic change and

migration or demographic change and health care.

7_ Demographic criteria as part of EU decision-making: In making decisions on the distribution of EU

structural funds, demographic criteria should be used alongside economic criteria. Research is

needed to support decision-making processes.

Recommendations to the cities

Until now, there have been relatively few opportunities for cities to learn from the experiences of others, in terms of dealing with

demographic change and its impact on housing. This is partly due to the complexities of the demographic processes, with their

interdependencies and changing dynamics, and partly because demographic change has only recently been given prominence.

In future, there needs to be an increased sharing of information: both on good and poor practice examples, in terms of lessons

learned.

As concrete measures we propose:

1_ Development of local monitoring systems: Local monitoring of housing markets, intra-urban mobility

and changing household structures is needed to keep track of the dynamics of residential patterns

as well as changing demand and supply. This will provide a more realistic basis for urban planning,

including decision-making on social and technical infrastructure development.

> Good practice example: Leipzig: annual housing monitoring since 2001.

2_ Age mainstreaming: As with gender mainstreaming, awareness of the specific needs and

circumstances of older people should become a matter of course, thereby encouraging all age

groups live alongside each other with respect. Appropriate training and education of municipal

staff will be necessary. (The authors came across the ‘age main-streaming’ phrase when looking at

demographic change in the Czech Republic.)

3_ Fostering communication between cities and between neighbourhoods: The aim is to learn from

the successes and failures of others (good practices and poor practices), and also to compare

common aspects and differences between cities and neighbourhoods.

> Good practice example: Cooperation between Brno and Utrecht in the field of housing 1999-2002

(Project “Housing, an integral approach” on the city scale and also for two

selected districts of Brno).

4_ Building up local knowledge clusters: Knowledge clusters should be established in order to produce

synergies in pursuing common urban development targets, and to keep track of exactly what is

going on in each city (projects, initiatives etc.). Possible membership includes administrative bodies,

scientists, NGO’s, private enterprises, etc. The success of a knowledge cluster depends on a clear and

transparent definition of its aims and resources.

5_ Capitalising on the resources of publicly-financed scientific institutions: Close cooperation between the

municipalities on the one hand and local universities and scientific institutes on the other, generates

mutual benefits in terms of support for problem solving and development strategies.

> Good practice example: Liverpool and Leipzig have both continuously cooperated with scientific

institutions over the long term.

6_ Deliberate distinction between population growth and economic development: Successful economic

development alone does not guarantee a stable or growing population. The question is: which

amenities can cities with a poor economic base offer to inhabitants? Promoting the advantages of

a city is essential to attracting in-migration and to retaining its inhabitants.

> Good practice example: Liverpool: European Capital of Culture 2008

Łódź: reuse of industrial heritage for new housing (“Scheibler-Lofts”)

7_ Involving expert groups: An independent expert advisory board can give helpful advice and

recommendations to the municipalities in terms of applying for EU funds as well as on how best to

make effective and efficient use of the funds. Furthermore, they can develop proposals that deal

with specific issues, independently of local political constraints or current priorities. These proposals

can form part of innovative future development strategies.

8_ Use of the political arena to support immigrant communities: Formal political institutions are

needed in order to raise public awareness of the problems of immigrants in their daily lives,

and to achieve solutions and improvements.

> Good practice example: Bologna: forum of foreign civic associations (immigrants "parliament")

All the above recommendations can be seen as concrete ways in which the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, an EU

document passed in May 2007, can be implemented. The charter now needs live policies and actions. The aim of the Charter is to

serve as a basis for steering urban policy and development. A key focus will be the challenges of demographic changes and their

interdependencies with housing.

In our view, demographic change is not just one factor

among others, but a crucial framework condition of

future societal and urban development. Therefore, broader

strategies for sustainable development are needed, in

order to tackle the effects of this multi-scale process,

which depends on so many other socio-economic

factors. In addition, demographic change impacts on

economic processes as well as on social and ecological

issues. Sustainable development of the housing sector

needs to take into account new social and generational

tensions, ageing processes and their consequences, new

costs caused by the need to adapt the infrastructure, as

well as the ecological and economic effects of vacant

housing. It should also take into account possible future

opportunities of these processes.

76 77

_Bierzyński, A., Węcławowicz, G. (2008): Łódź Data Analysis

Report. Unpublished conDENSE project report. Warsaw,

Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Geography and

Spatial Organization.

_Buzar, S., Odgen, P., Hall, R. (2005): Households matter: the

quiet demography of urban transformation. In: Progress in

Human Geography 29: 413-436.

_Buzar, S., Hall, R., Ogden, P. (2007a): Beyond gentrification:

the demographic reurbanization of Bologna. In:

Environment and Planning A 39: 64-85.

_Buzar, S., Ogden, P., Hall, R., Haase, A., Kabisch, S.,

Steinführer, A. (2007b): Splintering urban populations:

emergent landscapes of reurbanisation in four European

cities. In: Urban Studies 44: 651-677.

_Chlupová, D., Polešáková, M.; Rohrerová, L. (2008): Výsledky

dotazníkové akce o změnách v obecním bytovém fondu

ve vybraných městech (2005, 2006). In: Urbanismus a

územní rozvoj 11(1): 17-30.

_City of Brno, Municipality of Utrecht (2002): Walking the

Tightrope. District Development Plans. An approach to

structure the local development process. Brno, Utrecht.

_CoE [Council of Europe] (2005): Recent Demographic

Developments in Europe 2004. Strasbourg.

_Comune di Bologna (2002): Rapporto sullo Stato

dell’Ambiente. Bologna.

_Comune di Bologna (2004): I cittadinini raccontano la vita

nel quartiere. I casi studio della Bolognina e di San Donato.

Bologna (unpublished project paper, Re Urban Mobil).

_Comune di Bologna (2005a): Studi e ricerche sulla città,

Le trasformazioni della populazione e delle famiglie, I dati

in sintesi per la costruzione del plano strutturale (www.

comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/psc_doc/trasf_pop.

pdf, date of last access 20/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2005b): I dati in sintesi per la

costruzione del Piano Strutrurale. 6. L’Evoluzione del

partimonio abitativo (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/

piancont/psc_doc/trasf_abi.pdf, last date of access

26/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2008g): Le tendenze demografiche

a Bologna nel 2007 (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/

piancont/noterapide/popolazione/2006/PopolazioneBolo-

gna31122006.pdf, date of last access 21/08/2008).

_Couch, C. (2003): Urban Regeneration in Liverpool. In:

Couch, C., Fraser, C., S. Percy (Eds.): Urban Regeneration in

Europe. Oxford: 34-55.

_Couch, C., Karecha, K., Nuissl, H., D. Rink (2005): Decline

and Sprawl: An Evolving Type of Urban Development –

Observed in Liverpool and Leipzig. In: European Planning

Studies 13, 117-136.

_ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad] (2003): Sčítání lidu, domů a

bytů k 1.3.2001: obyvatelstvo, byty, domy a domác-nosti.

Okres Brno-město. Praha.

_ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad], Regional Office Brno (2002-

2007): Statistical Yearbook of the Jihomoravský Region

2002-2007. Brno.

_EC [European Commission] (2006): The demographic future

of Europe – from challenge to opportunity.

Luxem-bourg: Office for Official Publications of the

European Communities (http://ec.europa.eu/emploment_

social/publications/2007/ke7606057_en.pdf, date of last

access 26/08/2008).

_EC [European Commission] (2007): Survey on perceptions

of quality of life in 75 European cities (http://ec.europa.eu/

regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/urban/

survey062007_en.pdf, date of last access 26/05/2008).

_EUROCITIES (2007): Analysis of EUROCITIES Demographic

Change Survey 2007. (www.um.lublin.pl/um/index.

php?t=210&id=56093&mode=a, date of last access

26/05/2008).

_Gober, P. (1990): The Urban Demographic Landscape. In:

Myers, D. (Ed.): Housing Demography. Linking

Demographic Structure and Housing Markets. Madison,

London: 232–248.

_Großmann, K., Haase, A., Kabisch, S., Steinführer, A. (2008):

Entering new grounds: Crossing the boundaries between

demography and urban studies. Conference on Socio-

demographic change of European cities and its

spatial consequences, Leipzig, 14–16 April 2008. In:

Cities 25 (forthcoming; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

cities.2008.08.002).

_Haase, A., Großmann, K., Kabisch, S., Steinführer, A. (2008):

Städte im demographischen Wandel. Perspektivenwechsel

für Ostmitteleuropa? In: Osteuropa 58: 77-90.

6_References and websites 6.1_References

_Haase, A., Kabisch, S., Steinführer, A. (2006): Aufschwung

der inneren Stadt in Europa? Reurbanisierung unter den

Bedingungen des demographischen Wandels im

internationalen Vergleich. In: Europa Regional 14(4):

167-180.

_Haase, A., Kabisch, S., Steinführer, A., Buzar, S., Hall, R.,

Ogden, P. E. (2005): Reurbanising the inner city:

demographic and social future of the ‘Re Urban Mobil’ case

study areas. Key issues of socio-demographic analyses,

evidence of reurbanisation, target groups and practice

recommendations. Centre for Environ-mental Research

Leipzig-Halle (today: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental

Research – UFZ) (www.re-urban.com/downloads/

WP3partB.pdf ).

_Haase, A., Steinführer, A., Kabisch, S., Gierczak, D. (2007):

How inner-city housing and demographic change are

intertwined in East-Central European cities. Comparative

analyses in Polish and Czech cities for the transition period.

In: Komar, B., Kucharczyk-Brus, B. (Eds.): Housing and

Environmental Conditions in Post-Communist Countries.

Gliwice: 148-174.

_Haase, D., Haase, A., Kabisch, S., Bischoff, P. (2008):

Guidelines for the ‘Perfect Inner City’ - Discussing the

Appropriateness of Monitoring Approaches for

Reurbanisation. In: European Planning Studies 16: 1075-

1100.

_Herfert, G. (2007): Regionale Polarisierung der

demographischen Entwicklung in Ostdeutschland –

Gleichwertig-keit der Lebensverhältnisse? In:

Raumforschung und Raumordnung 65: 435–455.

_Housing Statistics in the European Union 2004. Ed. by

National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, Sweden,

Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic.

Karlskrona, 2005. (www.eukn.org/binaries/eukn/

netherlands/research/2006/3/housing-statistics-in-the-

european-union-2004.pdf, date of last access 26/05/2008).

_Jakóbczyk-Gryszkiewicz, J. (1997): Demographic

Characteristics of Łódź. In: Liszewski, S., Young, C. (Eds.):

A Comparative Study of Łódź and Manchester:

Geographies of European Cities in Transition. Łódź: 111-

124.

_Kaa, D. J. van de (1987): Europe’s second demographic

transition. In: Population Bulletin 42: 1–57.

_Kaa, D. J. van de (2004): Is the Second Demographic

Transition a useful research concept. Questions and

answers. In: Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2004:

4–10.

_Kabisch, S. (2005): Empirical analyses on housing vacancy

and urban shrinkage. In: Hürol, Y., Vestbro D. U., Wilkinson,

N. (Eds.): Methodologies in Housing Research. Gateshead:

188-205.

_Kabisch, S., Peter, A. (2008): Quartiere auf Zeit. In: Schnur,

O., Gebhardt, D. (Eds.): Quartiersforschung in Theorie und

Praxis. Wiesbaden: 301-318.

_Kaczmarek, S. (1997): Spatial Differentiation of Housing

Conditions and Urban Landscape in Łódź. In: Liszewski, S.,

Young, C. (Eds.): A Comparative Study of Łódź and

Manchester: Geographies of European Cities in Transition.

Łódź: 175-185.

_Kohler, H. P., Billari, F. C., Ortega, J. A. (2002): The Emergence

of Lowest-Low Fertility in Europe during the 1990s.

In: Population and Development Review 28: 641-680.

_Kostelecký, T. (2000): Housing and Its Influence on the

Development of Social Inequalities in the Post-Communist

Czech Republic. In: Czech Sociological Review 8: 177–193.

_Kowalski, M., Śleszyński, P. (2006): Problems of Socio-Spatial

Development in Central Districts of Warsaw. In: Enyedi, G.,

Kovács, Z. (Eds.): Social Changes and Social Sustainability in

Historical Urban Centres. The Case of Central Europe. Pécs:

107-126.

_Kurek, S. (2008): Typologia starzenia się ludności Polski w

ujęciu przestrzennym. Kraków.

_LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2001): Census 2001. Key

Statistics for Liverpool. Liverpool. (www.liverpool.gov.uk/

Images/tcm21-28081.pdf, date of last access 28/08/2008).

_LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2003): HMRI. Housing Market

Renewal Initiative. Liverpool Delivery Plan. Liverpool

(www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-48948.pdf, date of

last access 28/08/2008).

_LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2006a): Housing Strategy

Statement 2005-2008. Liverpool. (www.liverpool.gov.uk/

Images/tcm21-66883.pdf, data of the year 2002, date of

last access 20/08/2008).

_LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2006b): North Liverpool

Economic Development Plan. Liverpool. (www.liverpool.

gov.uk/Images/tcm21-73307.pdf, date of last access

28/08/2008).

_LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2007b): Housing Market

Renewal in Liverpool. Annual Report 2006/07. Liverpool.

(www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-120535.pdf, date of

last access 28/08/2008).

_LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2007c): Housing Needs

Assessment. Final Draft. October 2007. Liverpool.

_LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2007d): Liverpool City Region

Housing Strategy. Liverpool. (www.liverpool.gov.uk/

Images/tcm21-103469.pdf, date of last access 28/08/2008).

_LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2008a): Key Statistic Bulletin,

Issue 4, 03/2008. Liverpool. (www.liverpool.gov.uk/

Images/tcm21-120488.pdf, date of last access 28/06/2008).

_LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2008b): Liverpool Economic

Briefing. A monitor of employment and wealth generation

(1995-2005/6). Liverpool. (www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/

tcm21-120564.pdf, date of last access 22/08/08).

78 79

_Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities. Leipzig,

24 May 2007 (www.eu2007.de/en/News/download_docs/

Mai/0524-AN/075DokumentLeipzigCharta.pdf; date of last

access: 22/10/2008).

_Lux, M. (2000): The housing policy changes and housing

expenditures in the Czech Republic. Prague.

_Lux, M. (2001): History and Challenges of “Social” Rental

Housing in the Czech Republic. In: Lux, M. (Ed.): Social

Housing in Europe 2000. Prague: 33-48.

_Maas, A. (2007): Schrumpfendes Brünn? Quantitative und

Qualitative Analysen. Diplomarbeit. Universität Leipzig,

Institut für Geographie.

_Maier, K. (2001): Urbanisierung und Regionalisierung in der

Tschechischen Republik in der

Transformationsperiode. In: ARL (Hg.): Erscheinungen,

Wirkungen und Steuerungsmöglichkeiten von

Suburbanisierungsprozessen. Ergebnisse eines

internationalen Planerforums in Prag. Hannover: 61-67.

_Markowski, T., Stawasz, D. (Eds.) (2007): Rewitalizacja a

rozwój funkcji metropolitalnych miasta Łodzi. Łódź.

_Misselwitz, P. (2004): Liverpool City Profile. In: Shrinking

Cities. Working papers Manchester/Liverpool (www.shrink-

ingcities.com/fileadmin/shrink/downloads/pdfs/II.1_

Studies1.pdf, date of last access 22/08/2008).

_MMB [Magistrat města Brna] (2001): Strategie bydlení

města Brna. Brno.

_MMB [Magistrat města Brna] (2002): Generel bydlení města

Brna. Brno.

_Nevin, B., Lee, P., L. Goodson, Groves, R., Hall, S., Murie, A.,

J. Phillimore (2001): Liverpool’s Housing Market Research

Programme 1999/2001: A Review of the Main Findings and

Policy Recommendations. Birmingham.

_NiDi Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute

(2007): Demographic Trends, Socio-Economic Impacts

and Policy Implications in the European Union – 2007. DG

"Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportuni-ties" Unit

E1 - Social and Demographic Analysis (http://ec.europa.

eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_situation/2007_

exec_sum_demo.pdf, date of last access 26/05/2008).

_Obraniak, W. (1997): Depresja demograficzna w Łodzi.

In: Przegląd Socjologiczny XLVI: 89–103.

_Ogden, P. E., Hall, R. (2004): The second demographic

transition, new household forms and the urban population

of France during the 1990s. In: Transactions of the Institute

of British Geographers NS 29: 88-105.

_Okólski, M. (2006): Płodność i rodzina w okresie

transformacji. In: Wasilewski, J. (Ed.): Współczesne

społeczeństwo polskie. Warszawa: 103–143.

_Peter, A. (2006): Stadtquartiere auf Zeit in einer alternden

Gesellschaft. Fallbeispiele Wolfen und Hoyerswerda. In:

Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde 80: 275–293.

_Riley, R., Niżnik, A. M., Burdack, J. (1999): Łódź.

Transformation einer altindustriellen Stadt in der

postsozialistischen Periode. In: Europa Regional 7(1): 22–31.

_Slany, K. (2007): Alternatywne formy życia małżeńsko-

rodzinnego. In: Kojder, A. (Ed.): Jedna Polska? Dawne i

nowe zróżnicowania społeczne. Kraków: 237-268.

_Stadt Leipzig (1991a-2007a): Statistisches Jahrbuch 1991-

2007. Leipzig.

_Stadt Leipzig (2001c-2007c): Monitoringberichte 2001-

2007. Leipzig.

_Stadt Leipzig (2003b): Konzept der Seniorenarbeit Leipzig.

2. Altenhilfeplan 2003. Leipzig.

_Stadt Leipzig (2004b): Zwischenbericht Grünau 2004.

Leipzig.

_Stadt Leipzig (2007b): Sozialreport 2007. Leipzig.

_Stadt Leipzig (2007d): Entwicklungsstrategie Grünau

2020. Leipzig (www.leipzig.de/imperia/md/content/64_

stadterneuerung/gruenau2020_entwicklungsstrategie_

textendversion.pdf, date of last access 21/05/2008).

_Stadt Leipzig (2007e): Strukturatlas Leipzig 2007. Leipzig.

_Stadt Leipzig (2008): Statistischer Quartalbericht. 2/2008.

Leipzig.

_Statistisches Bundesamt (2003): Bevölkerung Deutschlands

bis 2050. 10. koordinierte Bevölkerungsvoraus-berech-

nung. Presseexemplar. Wiesbaden.

_Steinführer, A. (2004): Privatisierung auf Umwegen:

Wohnungspolitik, Eigentumsstrukturen und Segmentation

der Wohnungsmärkte in der Tschechischen Republik.

In: Geographische Zeitschrift 92: 76-92.

_Steinführer, A. (2006): The Urban Transition of Inner-City

Areas Reconsidered (a German-Czech Comparison).

In: Moravian Geographical Reports 14(1): 3–16.

_Steinführer, A., Haase, A. (2007): Demographic Change as

Future Challenge for Cities in East Central Europe.

In: Geografiska Annaler B 89: 183-195.

_Steinführer, A., Haase, A. (2008): Flexible–inflexible: Socio-

demographic, spatial and temporal dimensions of flat

sharing in Leipzig (Germany). Paper accepted for

GeoJournal (forthcoming).

_Steinführer, A., Haase, A., Kabisch, S. (2008): Household-

based questionnaire surveys in European cities.

Experiences from a cross-national research project. In:

Grözinger, G., Matiaske, W., Spieß, C. K. (Eds.): Europe and

its Regions: The Usage of European Regionalized Social

Science Data. Newcastle: 253-270.

_VCRR MU [Výzkumné centrum regionálního rozvoje Ma-

sarykovy university] (2005): Vývojové tendence ve městě

Brně: obyvatelstvo, trh práce, průmysl. Brno.

_CEE Property Group (2008): Sytuacja na rynku mieszkaniowym w Polsce (from 12/09/2007) (www.pfpp.com.pl/content/

view/96/66/, date of last access 26/08/08).

_Comune di Bologna (2007a): Dati statistici, Populazione, Struttura per sesso e per età, (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/

piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Struttura%20per%20sesso%20e%20per%20eta/

SessoxEtaBologna/200110.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2007b): Indicatori socio-economici – dati per quartieri, zone ed aree statistiche (www.comune.bologna.it/

iperbole/piancont/Indicatori_socioeconomici/Indicatori%20socio%20economici_2007.pdf, date of last access 20/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2007c): Piano Strutturale Comunale, Quadro conoscitivo. Bologna. (http://informa.comune.bologna.it/

iperbole/media/files/qc_xpress_cd_1.pdf, date of last access 05/11/2008)

_Comune di Bologna (2008a): Cittadini stranieri a Bologna (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/Stranieri/StudiStranieri/

Stranieri_aBo/StraneiriPresentazione2007.pdf, date of last access 20/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2008b): Le recenti tendenze di natalità a Bologna (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/

noterapide/popolazione/Natalita/Nati_Studio2000803.pdf, date of last access 20/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2008c): Scenari demografici 2006-2021 (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/scenari20062021/

index_scenari.html, date of last access 20/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2008d): Dati statistici, Populazione, Movimento della popolazione residente (www.comune.

bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Movimento%20

Anagrafico/280004.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2008e): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Divorzi (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/

Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Divorzi/290625.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2008f ): Dati statistici, Istruzione, Universita (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/

Tavole/Istruzione/Universita/400013.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2008h): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Matrimoni (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/

Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Matrimoni/290511.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2008i): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Immigrati (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_

tendenze/Grafici/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Immigrati/G_280329_03.xls#Grafico!A1, date of last access

21/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2008j): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Emigrati (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_

tendenze/Grafici/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Emigrati/G_280439_03.xls#Grafico!A1, date of last access

21/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2008k): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Movimento della popolazione residente, saldo migratiorio (www.

comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_tendenze/Grafici/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Movimen-

to%20Anagrafico/G_280004_05.xls#Grafico!A1 date of last access 21/08/2008).

_Comune di Bologna (2008l): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Famiglie (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/

Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Famiglie/FamiglieBologna/250110.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access

21/08/2008).

_conDENSE Project, main page (www.condense-project.org, date of last access 22/08/2008).

_ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad] (1991-2006): Demographic Yearbook (www.czso.cz/csu/2007edicniplan.nsf/engp/4018-07, date of

last access 23/05/2008).

_ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad] (2003): Sčítání lidu, domů a bytů 2001 - okres Brno-město 2001 (www.brno.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan.

nsf/p/13-6224-03; date of last access 05/20/2008).

80 81

6.2_Websites

_ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad] (2006): Vývoj základních demografických ukazatelů ve vybraných městech ČR 1919 až 2005 (www2.

czso.cz/csu/2006edicniplan.nsf/ publ/4018-06-1919_az_2005; date of last access 26/05/2008).

_ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad] (2007): Demographic yearbook of selected towns in CR 1991-2006 (www.czso.cz/

csu/2007edicniplan.nsf/engp/4018-07, date of last access 20/05/2008).

_ČSÚ [Český statistický úřad] (2008): Abecední seznam obcí k 01/01/2008 (www.brno.czso.cz/xb/redakce.nsf/i/mesta_a_obce,

date of last access 20/05/2008).

_Demografia in Cifre (http://demo.istat.it/pop2006/, date of last access 26/05/2008).

_EuroStat, Haupttabellen, Allgemeine und Regionalstatistiken, Urban Audit (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_

pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=de&product=EU_MAIN_TREE&root=EU_

MAIN_TREE/tb/t_general/t_urb/tgs00015, data 2003-2006, date of last access 22/08/2008).

_GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] (2004) Prognosa ludności na lata 2003-2030. Warszawa (www.stat.gov.pl/gus/45_648_PLK_

HTML.htm, date of last access 14/08/2008).

_GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] (2008): Regional data bank by NUTs classification (www.stat.gov.pl/bdren_s/app/strona.

indeks2, date of last access 25/08/2008).

_HausHalten Association Leipzig: main page (www.haushalten-leipzig.de, date of last access 21/08/2008).

_LWB [Leipziger Wohnungs- und Baugesellschaft mbH] (2007): Werbekampagne “Leipzig – Gegen Mangel im Alter” (www.lwb.

de/index.php?session=0617517f84b5c0e2d91212204dbaf6e8&page=1152, date of last access 21/08/2008).

_LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2007a): Population development 1961-2004 (www.liverpool.gov.uk/News/newsdetail_1352.asp,

date of last access 09/17/2007).

_Re Urban Mobil Project, main page (www.re-urban.com).

_Scheibler Lofts, main page (www.uscheiblera.com.pl, date of last access 13/08/2008).

_Statistical Yearbooks of the Southern Moravia Region 2001-2005 (www.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan.nsf/t/950046E430/$File/13-

6201070311.xls, date of last access 15/08/2008).

_Statistical Yearbook of the Southern Moravia Region (www.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan.nsf/kapitola/13-6201-07-2007-14, date of last

access 05/07/2008).

_Statistical Yearbook of the Southern Moravia Region (www.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan.nsf/t/950046E32B/$File/13-6201070104.xls,

31 December, date of last access 15/08/2008).

_Statistisches Landesamt des Freistaates Sachsens (2007): Durchschnittsalter der Bevölkerung des Freistaates Sachsen am

31. Dezember 1990, 1995, 2000 und 2004 bis 2006 nach kreisfreien Städten und Landkreisen. (www.statistik.sachsen.

de/21/02_02/02_02_02_tabelle.asp, date of last access 23/05/2008).

_Urban Audit, main page (www.urbanaudit.org/rank.aspx, date of last access 23/05/2008).

_Urząd Miasta Łódzi , information on revitalisation project Nawrot 7 (www.uml.lodz.pl/index.php?str=603 and www.uml.lodz.pl/

index.php?str=606, date of last access 13/08/2008).

_Urząd Miasta Łódzi, Project PROREVITA, main page (www.prorevita.pl, date of last access 13/08/2008).

_UK Office for National Statistics (1991-2008): Key population and vital statistics 1991-2006. London. (www.statistics.gov.uk/

StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=539, date id last access 15/08/2008).

_UK Office for National Statistics (2008a): Neighbourhood Statistics (www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination,

date of last access 22/08/2008).

_VID [Vienna Institute of Demography], PRB [Population Reference Bureau] (2008): Tempo Effect and Adjusted TFR (www.oeaw.

ac.at/vid/datasheet/box2.shtml, date of last access 27/08/08).

82 83

Add

endu

m

Census and annual population data

At a high level, data capture and research methods are the main preconditions for achieving convincing

research results. It is essential to check the applicability and the content of traditional data sources (e.g.

from censuses) and also their lack of data. Furthermore, the appropriateness and transparency of the

methods used has to be guaranteed. As already mentioned in Chapter 3, the quality of the data used for

each investigated city differs significantly, in terms of availability and reliability. To shed more light on this,

the data sources for two of the case study cities, Leipzig and Brno, will be described in more detail.

In both cities, annual population data are available. Usually such data is based on census

updates. Yet, in the case of Leipzig, the last population census was almost 30 years ago,

in 1981 (and the last housing census in 1995). So, the municipal statisticians face the

demanding task of maintaining a variety the population data and keeping it up-to-date. In

contrast, in the Czech Republic, the last census was carried out in 2001, as in most other

European countries (also in Poland, Italy and the UK). Therefore, there is plenty of detailed

demographic data for that particular year (especially on the number and structure of

households). However, the figures have not been updated since then.

Census data provides a regular up-to-date inventory of the population and its age,

household and educational composition at a certain moment in time. Census data, as a

major source of demographic information, significantly differ from longitudinal studies,

which involve repeated observations of the same variables over long periods of time,

often many decades. These are used for monitoring fertility, mortality, marriage or

migration, which demographers also need in order to explain or forecast population trends.

Census data are also needed on a regular basis, to verify and correct the data based on

registration, which becomes less and less accurate over time. An appropriate interpretation

of the period between two censuses is difficult, because general methodological questions

cannot be answered by means of census data: for example whether changes between year

t1 and t2 occurred in a linear way, and how to integrate probable ups and downs during

the time interval covered. However, as annual small-scale and detailed information is not

available in most countries, census data is indispensable for housing research and housing

policies. As already stated above, this represents a problem for German cities, because the

last census for western Germany took place in 1987, and for eastern Germany it was 1981,

with a housing census in 1995.

In terms of the quantitative dimension of urban demographic change in

the inter-census periods, the population registers can be used for Leipzig

(run by the municipality) and Brno (run by the regional statistical office).

For Brno, there is a further population data source: this is available from the

Ministry of Interior of the Czech Republic (ISEO register). However, there are

significant differences between the two datasets, and it is unclear which one

is correct.

7.1_Methodological remarks

These differences in data generation and availability are crucial, because in many cases they

prohibit direct comparison.

In consultations with experts, in particular regarding the different methodological

ap-proaches, it seems that there are three possible reasons for the differences between

the two sets of figures. Firstly, there may have been an undervaluation of the population

in the last census 2001 (of some 130,000 to 150,000 people for the whole Czech Republic).

Secondly, there is an uncertain number of Czech citizens living abroad but still registered

at home (and covered by ISEO). Thirdly, there was a problem with recording the exact

numbers of foreigners. Among Czech experts, there is a broad debate about the ‘right’

statistical numbers, and about the possible causes for the large differences. In the case of

Brno, the difference amounts to some 66,000 people by the end of 2006 (!); but there is

no clear answer10. The problem is a structural one. Normally, in-migrants should register

at their new address after moving (compulsory registration), but often they fail to register.

This applies to most students and young professionals, who are often still registered at their

parents’ home. Moreover, many out-migrants do not announce their change of residence

either. Hence very often, in economically prosperous cities the number of inhabitants is

underestimated; and in declining areas the population is overestimated. One sign of an

underestimation in Brno is that the capacity of the sewage plant, which was designed for

500,000 people, is fully utilised! The general message is that population data should be

treated with caution.

Problems of data generation and comparability are also found at the European level. For

example, even with such respected data collection projects as the Urban Audit, there are

difficulties. This is due to the fact that the sources of the information in the audit are not

available. To take just one example for Leipzig and Brno: the 2001 Urban Audit figure for

Leipzig’s total population (493,052) is taken from the city’s statistical yearbook (and, thus,

the population register). In contrast, the number for Brno (376,172) is taken from the Czech

Republic’s 2001 census and is therefore based on a completely different methodology of

data collection.

84 85

10 W

e ar

e gr

atef

ul fo

r the

exp

lana

tions

and

adv

ice

by P

etr K

lusá

ček

(Inst

itute

for G

eoni

cs, A

cade

my

of S

cien

ces o

f the

Cze

ch R

epub

lic, B

ranc

h Br

no) c

once

rnin

g th

ese

data

issu

es.

Add

endu

m

Urban Audit

The Urban Audit is an initiative of the Directorate-General for

Regional Policy at the Euro-pean Commission (DG Regio), in

cooperation with EUROSTAT and national statistical offices. It

provides reliable and comparable information on cities in the

European Union and in EU candidate countries. The Urban

Audit consists of demography and housing indicators which

have been calculated by Eurostat. The Urban Audit is a

response to the growing demand for an assessment of life in

European towns and cities. It allows a comparison of towns

and cities by regional, national and European agencies, as well

as between the towns and cities themselves. For example,

comparisons can be made in terms of geographical position

within Europe (e.g. central/peripheral; North/South),

economic, economic activity, employment, public transport,

and educational achievements. There is also scope for

comparing disparities within towns and cities, which can be

very useful, sometimes crucial, for deciding policy measures.

Time coverage

Urban Audit data has been collected at five points in time: 1991 (a pilot project looking at only some of

the variables); 1996 (a further pilot with only some of the variables) and 2001 (full coverage); 2004 (the first

full-scale European Urban Audit). 2006/7 saw the second full-scale Urban Audit.

For further information: http://www.urbanaudit.org.

86 87

As mentioned in the main report, the definitions of key indicators differ. For example, the term

“household” varies across the five investigated European countries. The main source of these

definitions (apart from the Czech Republic) is “Housing Statistics in the European Union”, 2004.

To include the local understanding of the term ‘household’, national sources are also used.

Germany

A household consists of all persons who are living together and run a household i.e.

who are financing their living costs jointly. With reference to the Federal Statistical

Office, a household is defined as a living arrangement which can be a person living

alone or a unit of persons living together and sharing a large part of their living costs

(Statistisches Bundes¬amt 2003 and Housing Statistics 2004, 99).

Czech Republic

The Czech Statistical Office differentiates between three types of households:

1_ dwelling households (bytové domácnosti): created by all the people living in one dwelling:

their number is therefore always identical with the number of dwellings;

2_ economic households (hospodařící domácnosti): created by people living together in one

dwelling who share basic food expenditure, housing costs etc. (subtenants and their families

create separate economic households);

3_ census households (cenzové domácnosti): created by people living together in one dwelling

who are either blood relatives or other relations: four types exist: a) complete census

household = complete “family” (with or without children); b) non-complete census

household = non-complete family; c) non-family census household; d) census house-holds

of individuals.

The number of census households is larger than the number of economic households; in turn, the number

of economic households is higher than the number of dwelling households.

Data on these types of households are only collected and generated in the censuses. In this report,

household data always refers to census households: this is also common usage in the Czech Republic’s

statistics (ČSÚ 2003)

7.2_Different definitions of “household”

Add

endu

m

Italy

The term ‘household’ is not used in Italy. The common term is family (famiglia). This is

understood to be a group of persons linked by bonds of marriage, kinship, affinity,

adoption, guardianship or affection: they live together in the same dwelling and therefore

have their habitual residence in the same municipality (even if they are not yet registered

in that municipality’s register of inhabitants). A family may also consist of only one person

(Housing Statistics 2004, 99).

In Bologna, two household definitions are used:

1_ famiglia which means people living together in a social and economic unit;

2_ ménage which relates to housing arrangements and which might comprise one or more

famiglia that live in or share one dwelling (Comune di Bologna 2007c).

Poland

In Poland a private household has two possible definitions:

1. a one-person household i.e. a person who lives alone in a separate

housing unit or who occupies, as a lodger, a separate room (or rooms)

of a housing unit but does not join with any of the other occupants

of the housing unit to form part of a multi-person household as

defined below;

2. a multi-person household i.e. a group of two or more persons

who combine to occupy the whole or part of a housing unit and to

provide themselves with food and possibly other essentials for living.

Members of the group may pool their incomes to a greater or lesser

extent (Housing Statistics 2004, 100).

United Kingdom

A household is defined as a person living alone or a group of people who

either share at least one meal a day or share the living accommodation. The

determining factors are meals and accommodation-sharing. The relationship

between the people in the household is irrelevant (Housing Statistics 2004,

100).

88 89

a_Table of general features of the investigated cities, 2001

Leipzig Brno Lodz Bologna Liverpool

POPULATION

Total population 493,0524 373,2721 786,52613 378,3565 439,2008

Births 3,7734 3,2401 5,56111 2,7739 4,9158

Deaths 5,3824 3,9631 10,84111 4,8409 5,1758

Natural balance -1,6094 -7231 -5,2811 -2,0679 -2608

Population density -

total resident population 1,657.113 1,635.513 2,671.713 2,632.813 3,923.913

per km²

Average age 43.22 41.53 41.1 12 47.6 5 not available

Average household size 1.8113 2.263 2.2413 2.0913 2.2710

Total number of households 272,10013 151,7243 351,95213 185,56921 187,86510

Share of one-person households 45.113 33.613 35.413 41.421 36.910

Marriages 1,3334 2,0591 3,5196 1,28817 not available

Divorces 9024 1,2841 1,8016 45516 not available

In-migrants 21,3654 3,1801 3,79411 11,34618 15,3008

Out-migrants 19,9124 5,9311 4,51511 10,44719 18,4008

Net migration 1,4534 -2,7511 -72111 -6220 -3,2008

Life expectancy at birth 77.913 76.213 72.313 80.813 not available

HOUSING

Dwellings 317,43913 162,17613 329,7196 194,86222 not available

Average housing space

per person (m2) 41.44 18.013 21.213 40.213 not available

Vacancy rate

(Share of empty dwellings in %) 17.313 3.213 4.713 3.0 – 4.023 9.014

Average price per m2

for an apartment (€) 1,07413 not available 40413 not available 1,421213

Average price per m2

for a house (€) 1,47313 not available 35713 not available 99213

TRAINING and EDUCATION

Total number of students 32,954 45,3311 94,3537 99,13015 37,74810

Unemployment rate 19.74 8.6 1 22.113 4.513 11.113

ENVIRONMENT

Proportion of the area

in green space 49.813 31.913 8.013 1.113 28.513

Sources: see below

The main data source for the target year 2001 is Urban Audit with the reference number 13. The other

footnotes describe data which could not be found in Urban Audit but are taken directly from national or

municipal statistical data sources. In addition we checked the data found in Urban Audit with respect to

their origins (see methodological remarks).

7.3_Tables

Add

endu

m

1_ Source: CSO [Czech Statistical Office] (1991-2006): Demographic Yearbook (http://www.czso.cz/csu/2007edicniplan.nsf/engp/4018-07, date of last access 23/05/2008).

2_Source: Stadt Leipzig (2007b): Sozialreport 2007. Leipzig.3_Source: CSO [Czech Statistical Office], Census 2001.4_Source: Stadt Leipzig (1991a-2007a): Statistical Yearbooks 1991-2007. Leipzig.5_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2007a): Dati statistici, Populazione, Struttura per sesso e per età, (http://www.comune.bologna.

it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Struttura%20per%20sesso%20e%20per%20eta/SessoxEtaBologna/200110.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

6_Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] Bank Danych Regionalnych.7_Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] Bank Danych Regionalnych (all study systems without post-diploma and doctor-ate studies).8_ Source: UK Office for National Statistics (1991-2008): Key population and vital statistics 1991-2006. London. (http://www.

statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=539, date of last access 15/08/2008).9_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008d): Dati statistici, Populazione, Movimento della popolazione residente (http://www.

comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Movimen-to%20Anagrafico/280004.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

10_ Source: LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2001): Census 2001. Key Statistics for Liverpool. Liverpool. (http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-28081.pdf, date of last access 28/08/2008, total number of full time students and schoolchildren).

11_ Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] (http://www.stat.gov.pl/bdren_s/app/strona.indeks, date of last access 12/08/08).

12_ Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] 2006, authors’ calculation; methodological remark: The mean age could be, in fact, a bit higher since for the age group 85+ there are bit higher since for the only aggregate data.

13_Source: Urban Audit (http://www.urbanaudit.org/rank.aspx, date of last access 15/08/2008).14_ Source: LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2006a): Housing Strategy Statement 2005-2008. Liverpool. (http://www.liverpool.gov.

uk/Images/tcm21-66883.pdf, data of the year 2002, date of last access 20/08/2008).15_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008f ): Dati statistici, Istruzione, Universita (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/pian-

cont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Istruzione/Universita/400013.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).16_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008e): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Divorzi, (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/pian-

cont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Divorzi/290625.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

17_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008h): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Matrimoni (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/pi-ancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Matrimoni/290511.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

18_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008i): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Immigrati. http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/pian-cont/dati_tendenze/Grafici/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Immigrati/G_280329_03.xls#Grafico!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

19_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008j): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Emigrati (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/pian-cont/dati_tendenze/Grafici/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Emigrati/G_280439_03.xls#Grafico!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

20_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008k): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Movimento della popolazione residente, saldo migratiorio (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_tendenze/Grafici/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popo-lazione/Movimento%20Anagrafico/G_280004_05.xls#Grafico!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

21_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008l): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Familgie http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/pian-cont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Famiglie/FamiglieBologna/250110.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

22_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2007b): Indicatori socio-economici – dati per quartieri, zone ed aree statistiche (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/Indicatori_socioeconomici/Indicatori%20socio%20economici_2007.pdf, date of last access 20/08/2008).

23_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2005c): I dati in sintesi per la costruzione del Piano Strutrurale. 6. L’Evoluzione del partimonio abitativo. (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/psc_doc/trasf_abi.pdf, date of last access 26/08/2008).

b_Table of general features of the investigated cities, 2006

Leipzig Brno Łódź Bologna Liverpool

POPULATION

Total population 506,6002 366,3841 760,2514 373,02624 436,1008

(31/12) (01/07) (31/12) (31/12) (30/06)

Births 4,4102 4,0561 5,91621 3,02124 5,49622

Deaths 5,4222 3,8331 10,84221 4,85524 4,61322

Natural balance -1,0122 2231 -4,92621 -1,834 24 88122

Population density - total

resident population per km² 297.62 1,592.99 2,582.417 not available not available

Average age 43.95 41.81 42.717 47.77 not available

Average household size 1.72 not available 2.2018 1.93 not available

Total number of households 298,7002 not available not available 193,55527 not available

Share of one-person households 52.22 not available not available 46.727 not available

Marriages 1,2822 2,1491 3,7904 1,10924 not available

Divorces 8972 1,0271 2,24419 36525 not available

In-migrants 23,9692 6,9431 4,07016 13,22824 15,40022

Out-migrants 19,0302 7,2431 5,43916 11,96024 17,90022

Net migration 4,9392 -3001 -1,36916 1,11724 -2,50022

Life expectancy at birth 79.32 74.010 72.318 not available not available

HOUSING

Dwellings 315,0002 165,36611 332,69218 not available 209,34415

Average housing space

per person (m2) 41.22 not available 22.66 not available not available

Vacancy rate

(Share of empty dwellings in %) 12.72 not available not available not available 7.123

Average price per m2 for

an apartment (€) not available not available not available not available not available

Average price per m2

for a house (€) not available not available not available not available not available

TRAINING and EDUCATION

Total number of students 37,1362 76,07912 118,41420 96,21726 not available

Unemployment rate 18.72 7.913 11.721 not available 26.38

ENVIRONMENT

Proportion of the area

in green space 53.52 30.014 not available not available not available

Sources: see below

90 91

Add

endu

m

1_ Source: CSO [Czech Statistical Office] (1991-2006): Demographic Yearbook (http://www.czso.cz/csu/2007edicniplan.nsf/engp/4018-07, date of last access 23/05/2008).

2_Source: Stadt Leipzig (1991a-2007a): Statistical Yearbook 1999-2007. Leipzig.3_Source: Demografia in Cifre (http://demo.istat.it/pop2006/, and authors estimation, data from 1/1/2006, date of last access 26/05/2008).4_Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] (http://stat.gov.pl and authors estimation, date of last access 26/05/2008).5_ Source: Statistisches Landesamt des Freistaates Sachsen (2007): Durchschnittsalter der Bevölkerung des Freistaates Sachsen

am 31. Dezember 1990, 1995, 2000 und 2004 bis 2006 nach kreisfreien Städten und Landkreisen. (http://www.statistik.sach-sen.de/21/02_02/02_02_02_tabelle.asp, date of last access 05/23/2008).

6_ Source: EuroStat, Haupttabellen, Allgemeine und Regionalstatistiken, Urban Audit (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=de&product=EU_MAIN_TREE&root=EU_MAIN_TREE/tb/t_general/t_urb/tgs00015, data 2003-2006, date of last access 22/08/2008).

7_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2007a): Dati statistici, Populazione, Struttura per sesso e per età, (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Struttura%20per%20sesso%20e%20per%20eta/SessoxEtaBologna/200110.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

8_ Source: LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2008a): Key Statistic Bulletin, Issue 4, 03/2008. Liverpool. (http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-120488.pdf, date of last access 28/06/2008).

9_ Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Southern Moravia Region (http://www.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan.nsf/kapitola/13-6201-07-2007-14, date of last access 05/07/2008).

10_ Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Southern Moravia Region, Years 2001-2005 (http://www.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan.nsf/t/950046E430/$File/13-6201070311.xls, date of last access 15/08/2008).

11_Source: MMB [Magistrat města Brna] Property department.12_Source: MMB [Magistrat města Brna] OUPR survey, academic year 2006/2007.13_ Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Southern Moravia Region, 31 December, (http://www.czso.cz/xb/edicniplan.nsf/

t/950046E32B/$File/13-6201070104.xls, date of last access 15/08/2008).14_Source: our estimation resulting from the share of the forest land in total city area (230 km²).15_Source: statistical data from Karen Canty" <Karen.Canty@liverpool.gov.uk>, 10/07/2008.16_ Source: Bierzyński calculation based on census data of central statistical office, data from 2005, GUS [Główny Urzad Staty-

stychzny]. 17_Source: Bierzyński calculation based on BDR, GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny].18_ Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] Podstawowe informacje z narodowego spisu ludności i mieszkań oraz powszech-

nego spisu rolnego 2002 w gminach, 2003.19_Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] Bank Danych Regionalnych.20_Source: Informatorium US w Łodzi.21_Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] (http://www.stat.gov.pl/bdren_s/app/strona.indeks, date of last access 12/08/2008).22_ Source: UK Office for National Statistics (1991-2008): Key population and vital statistics 1991-2006. London. (http://www.

statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=539, date of last access 15/08/2008).23_ Source: LCC [Liverpool City Council] (2006a): Housing Strategy Statement 2005-2008. Liverpool. (http://www.liverpool.gov.

uk/Images/tcm21-66883.pdf, data of the year 2002, date of last access 20/08/2008).24_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008g): Le tendenze demografiche a Bologna nel 2007. (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iper-

bole/piancont/noterapide/popolazione/2006/PopolazioneBologna31122006.pdf, date of last access 21/08/2008).25_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008e): Dati statistici, Populatzione, Divorzi, (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/pian-

cont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Movimento%20della%20Popolazione/Divorzi/290625.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

26_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008f ): Dati statistici, Istruzione, Universita (http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/pian-cont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Istruzione/Universita/400013.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

27_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2008l): Dati statistici, Popolazione, Familgie http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/pian-cont/dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Famiglie/FamiglieBologna/250110.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

92 93

c_Comparison of age classes 2001 and 2006

Leipzig Brno Łódź Bologna Liverpool

Age classes 2001

0-14 12.41 14.12 12.43 9.54 18.73

15-64 70.61 70.22 71.13 64.24 66.03

65 and older 17.01 15.72 16.53 26.34 15.33

Youth dependency rate

(0-14/15-64) 17.61 20.12 17.43 14.84 28.43

Age dependency rate

(65+/15-64) 24.11 22.42 23.23 40.94 23.23

Index of ageing (65+/0-14) 1.41 1.12 1.33 2.84 0.83

Age classes 2006

0-14 9.91 12.92 11.35 10.34 17.86

15-64 68.31 70.52 71.85 62.64 67.36

65 and older 21.81 16.52 16.85 27.04 15.06

Youth dependency rate

(0-14/15-64) 14.51 18.32 15.85 16.54 26.56

Age dependency rate

(65+/15-64) 31.91 23.52 23.45 43.24 22.26

Index of ageing (65+/0-14) 2.21 1.32 1.55 2.64 0.86

1_Source: Stadt Leipzig (2002-2007): Statistisches Jahrbuch 1999-2007. Leipzig.2_ Source: CSO [Czech Statistical Office] (1991-2006): Demographic Yearbook (www.czso.cz/csu/2007edicniplan.nsf/engp/4018-07, date of last

access 23/05/2008).3_Source: Urban Audit (www.urbanaudit.org/rank.aspx, date of last access 23/05/2008).4_ Source: Comune di Bologna (2007a): Dati statistici, Populazione, Struttura per sesso e per età, (www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/piancont/

dati_statistici/Tavole/Popolazione/Stato%20della%20Popolazione/Struttura%20per%20sesso%20e%20per%20eta/SessoxEtaBologna/200110.xls#Tavola!A1, date of last access 21/08/2008).

5_Source: GUS [Główny Urzad Statystychzny] (http://stat.gov.pl and authors estimation, date of last access 26/05/2008).6_ Source: UK Office for National Statistics (1991-2008): Key population and vital statistics 1991-2006. London. (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/

StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=539, date of last access 18/08/2008).

This publication is supported by the European Community Programme for Employment and Social

Solidarity (2007-2013). This programme was established to financially support the implementation

of the objectives of the European Union in the employment and social affairs area, as set out in the

Social Agenda, and thereby contribute to the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy goals in these

fields.

The seven-year Programme targets all stakeholders who can help shape the development of

appropriate and effective employment and social legislation and policies, across the EU-27, EFTA

and EU candidate and pre-candidate countries.

To that effect, PROGRESS purports at:

· providing analysis and policy advice on employment, social solidarity and gender equality policy

areas;

· monitoring and reporting on the implementation of EU legislation and policies in employment,

social solidarity and gender equality policy areas;

· promoting policy transfer, learning and support among Member States on EU objectives and

priorities; and

· relaying the views of the stakeholders and society at large.

For more information see:

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/progress/index_en.html

«The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission»

GraphicDesign: pierreyvesjurdant c/o NAos design © EUROCITIES - November 2008

1, Square de MeeûsB -1000 Brussels

tel +32-2-552.0888fax +32-2-552.0889www.eurocities.euinfo@eurocities.eu