ROMANIA Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on the Bucharest Urban Development Program (P169577) COMPONENT 1. ELABORATION OF BUCHAREST’S IUDS, CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT Output 3. Urban context and identification of key local issues and needs, and visions and objectives of IUDS and Identification of a long list of projects. Chapter 3. Spatial and Functional Profile March 2021 DISCLAIMER This report is a product of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/the World Bank. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. This report does not necessarily represent the position of the European Union or the Romanian Government. COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable laws. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with the complete information to either: (i) the Municipality of Bucharest (Bd. Regina Elisabeta 47, Bucharest, Romania); or (ii) the World Bank Group Romania (Str. Vasile Lascăr 31, et. 6, Sector 2, Bucharest, Romania). This report was delivered in March 2021 under the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on the Bucharest Urban Development Program, concluded between the Municipality of Bucharest and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development on March 4, 2019. It is part of Output 3 under the above-mentioned agreement – Urban context and identification of key local issues and needs, and visions and objectives of IUDS and Identification of a long list of projects – under Component 1, which refers to the elaboration of Bucharest’s Integrated Urban Development Strategy, Capital Investment Planning, and Management AKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report has been delivered under the provisions of the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on the Bucharest Urban Development Program and has been prepared under the guidance and supervision of Christoph Pusch (Practice Manager, Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience for Europe and Central Asia) and Tatiana Proskuryakova (Country Manager, Romania and Hungary). The report has been prepared by a team under the coordination of Dean Cira (Lead Urban Specialist) and composed of Andreea China (Senior Urban Development Specialist), Corina Chirilă (Senior Urban Development Specialist), Marius Cristea (Senior Urban Development Specialist), Andrei Mitrea (Urban Development Specialist), Alexandru Belenyi (Senior Urban Development Specialist), Marcel Ionescu-Heroiu (Senior Urban Development Speicalist), Marius Cristea (Senior Urban Development Specialist), Sorina Racoviceanu (Lead Urban Development Specialist), Carli Venter (Senior Urban Development Specialist), Oana Franț (Operations Specialist), Bianca Butacu (Analyst), Adina Vințan (Operations Specialist), Ioana Irimia (Communications Specialist) and George Moldoveanu (Information Assistant). The team would like to express its gratitude for the excellent cooperation, guidance, and timely feedback provided by the representatives of the Municipality of Bucharest, especially Mr. Nicușor Dan, Mr. Sorin Chiriță, Mr. Cătălin Zoican, Ms. Adriana Duțu, Ms. Luminița Glodea, and by the many other local and regional partners that have contributed to the elaboration of this report. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADI TPBI Bucharest-Ilfov Inter-Community Development Association for Public Transport ADI ZMB Inter-Community Development Agency for the Bucharest Metropolitan Area ADR BI Regional Development Agency Bucharest–Ilfov ALPAB Lakes, Parks and Leisure Administration CRE Commercial Real Estate CSP County Spatial Plan GDP Gross Domestic Product GLA Gross Leasable Area IUDP CZB Integrated Urban Development Plan for the Central Area of Bucharest PMB Municipality of Bucharest PUG General Urban Plan PUZ Zonal Urban Plan ROA Romanian Order of Architects SUMP Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 THE APPROACH ON HOUSING IN BUCHAREST ................................................................................................ 6 2.2 APPROACH ON PUBLIC SPACES IN BUCHAREST .............................................................................................. 7 2.3 THE APPROACH ON THE REAL ESTATE MARKET IN BUCHAREST ........................................................................... 9 3 ADMINISTRATIVE AND FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE OF BUCHAREST ......................................................... 14 3.1 ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................. 14 3.2 FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE ...................................................................................................................... 16 3.3 URBAN DEVELOPMENT DYNAMICS ........................................................................................................... 20 3.3.1 Urban sprawl ............................................................................................................................. 20 3.3.2 Densification process.................................................................................................................. 25 3.3.3 Land reserves ............................................................................................................................. 28 4 HOUSING IN BUCHAREST: RESULTS........................................................................................................ 31 4.1 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 31 4.1.1 Brief statistical profile of housing in Bucharest............................................................................ 32 4.1.1.1. Bucharest in International Context.......................................................................................................... 33 4.1.1.2. Existing Housing Stock ............................................................................................................................ 33 4.1.1.3. Selling and rental prices for dwellings ..................................................................................................... 36 4.1.1.4. Housing stock in Bucharest, by construction period ................................................................................. 37 4.1.1.5. Evolution of the existing number of dwellings ......................................................................................... 38 4.1.1.6. Evolution of the number of dwellings completed .................................................................................... 40 4.1.1.7. The dynamics of the real estate market of the residential buildings ......................................................... 44 4.1.1.8. Types of dwellings .................................................................................................................................. 46 4.1.1.9. Size of dwellings ..................................................................................................................................... 47 4.1.2.0. Inhabitants ............................................................................................................................................. 49 4.1.2.1. Housing Stock. Use and occupancy levels ................................................................................................ 51 4.1.2.2. Housing Overcrowding Rate.................................................................................................................... 52 4.2 EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 53 4.2.1 Social housing stock in Bucharest and its inhabitants .................................................................. 53 4.2.2 Housing ensembles age and constructive system ........................................................................ 54 4.2.3 Inhabitants aged 0 to 14 years old.............................................................................................. 55 4.2.4 Inhabitants aged 15 to 64 years old ............................................................................................ 56 4.2.5 Inhabitants older than 64 years old ............................................................................................ 57 4.2.6 Residential stock age.................................................................................................................. 60 4.2.7 Amenities and citizen satisfaction ............................................................................................... 62 4.2.8 Rejuvenation index and Residential stock age ............................................................................. 65 5 PUBLIC SPACES IN BUCHAREST: RESULTS ............................................................................................... 68 5.1 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SPACES IN BUCHAREST ............................................................................................... 68 5.1.1 Brief history of public spaces in Bucharest .................................................................................. 69 5.1.2 Distribution of public spaces in Bucharest ................................................................................... 71 5.1.2.1. Point-like spaces..................................................................................................................................... 76 5.1.2.2. Abandoned spaces ................................................................................................................................. 81 5.1.2.3. Linear spaces.......................................................................................................................................... 84 5.1.2.4. Street issue from a public space perspective ........................................................................................... 86 5.1.2.5. Surface spaces...................................................................................................................................... 111 6 REAL ESTATE ANALYSIS: RESULTS......................................................................................................... 117 6.1 THE REAL ESTATE MARKET IN THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU) .......................................................................... 117 6.1.1 Residential market ................................................................................................................... 117 6.1.2 Office market ........................................................................................................................... 122 6.2 REAL ESTATE MARKET IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN CAPITAL CITIES .................................................... 125 6.3 REAL ESTATE MARKET IN ROMANIA ........................................................................................................ 135 6.4 ANALYSIS OF THE REAL ESTATE MARKET IN BUCHAREST IN 2008-2019........................................................... 149 6.4.1 Residential market ................................................................................................................... 149 6.4.2 Office market ........................................................................................................................... 182 6.4.3 Retail buildings market............................................................................................................. 191 6.4.4 Land market............................................................................................................................. 193 6.5 ATTRACTIVENESS OF BUCHAREST NEIGHBORHOODS ................................................................................... 207 7 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................... 249 7.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ANALYSIS ON HOUSING IN BUCHAREST ....................................................................... 250 7.2 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ANALYSIS ON PUBLIC SPACES IN BUCHAREST ................................................................ 252 7.3 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE BUCHAREST REAL ESTATE MARKET ...................................................... 261 8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE STRATEGY ........................................................................................... 270 8.1 RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOUSING ........................................................................................................ 270 8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ON PUBLIC SPACES ................................................................................................. 274 8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE REAL ESTATE MARKET ................................................................................... 278 ANNEX 1: DRUMUL TABEREI NEIGHBORHOOD, PLAN AND REALITY ............................................................. 282 ANNEX 2: STATISTICAL SHEETS - HOUSING IN BUCHAREST. .......................................................................... 283 Summary statistical sheet of collective dwellings in Bucharest ............................................................... 283 Summary statistical sheet of collective dwellings in Bucharest............................................................... 285 Summary statistical sheet of Sector 1 .................................................................................................... 286 Summary statistical sheet of Sector 2 .................................................................................................... 288 Summary statistical sheet of Sector 3 .................................................................................................... 289 Summary statistical sheet of Sector 4 .................................................................................................... 291 Summary statistical sheet of Sector 5 .................................................................................................... 292 Summary statistical sheet of Sector 6.................................................................................................... 294 ANNEX 3: HOUSING ENSEMBLES AGE AND BUILDING SYSTEM ..................................................................... 296 ANNEX 4: PUBLIC SPACES INVENTORY SHEET ............................................................................................... 315 ANNEX 5: BUCHAREST NEIGHBORHOODS, ACCORDING TO THE DYNAMIC PUG TECHNICAL SOLUTION ....... 317 ANNEX 6: GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE ANALYTICAL CRITERIA USED FOR PUBLIC SPACES .......................... 318 ANNEX 7: SECTOR SHEET. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SPACES ......................................................... 319 ANNEX 8: EXAMPLES OF POINT-LIKE, LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES: .......................................................... 340 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 355 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOODS, REAL ESTATE ADVERTISEMENT AREAS, SECTORS AND REAL ESTATE SUB-MARKETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 TABLE 2. STATISTICAL DATA FOR THE POINT-LIKE SPACES OF BUCHAREST CITY ..................................................................... 79 TABLE 3. STATISTICAL DATA FOR THE ABANDONED SPACES OF BUCHAREST CITY ................................................................... 81 TABLE 4. PRIORITIES PROPOSED BY IUDP .................................................................................................................. 90 TABLE 5. STATISTICAL DATA FOR SURFACE SPACES IN BUCHAREST CITY ............................................................................ 113 TABLE 6. BUILDING PERMITS (BP), BY AUTHORIZED AREA (M2), FOR ALL BUILDING CATEGORIES IN BUCHAREST AND ILFOV (2008- 2019).................................................................................................................................................... 135 TABLE 7 EVOLUTION OF AVERAGE SALE PRICES 2019 VERSUS 2008, BY APARTMENT TYPE ................................................... 155 TABLE 8. EVOLUTION OF AVERAGE SALE PRICES PER M2 2019 VERSUS 2008, BY APARTMENT TYPE, BY CONSTRUCTION YEAR ........ 156 TABLE 9. PRICE EVOLUTION S01/2008 VERSUS S01/2019 BY REAL ESTATE ADVERTISEMENT AREA ....................................... 171 TABLE 10. DELIVERY OF OFFICE SPACES EXPECTED FOR 2020-2022 ............................................................................... 187 TABLE 11. EXISTING RETAIL BUILDINGS STOCK AND OCCUPANCY RATE ............................................................................. 193 TABLE 12. EVOLUTION OF LAND SALE PRICES (EUR/M2), 2019 VERSUS 2008 .................................................................. 196 TABLE 13. EVOLUTION OF AVERAGE LAND PRICES IN 2008-S01/2019, BY LAND SURFACE................................................... 200 TABLE 14 EVOLUTION OF AVERAGE LAND PRICES IN THE 1ST SEMESTER OF 2008 VERSUS THE 1ST SEMESTER OF 2019 BY REAL ESTATE ADVERTISEMENT AREAS ............................................................................................................................... 204 TABLE 15. TYPES OF APPROACHES IN CREATING PUBLIC SPACES ..................................................................................... 258 TABLE 16. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE INTEGRATED URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR BUCHAREST CITY (IUDS B), THE HOUSING THEME. ...................................................................................................................................... 270 TABLE 17. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE INTEGRATED URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR BUCHAREST CITY (IUDS B), THE PUBLIC SPACES THEME. ......................................................................................................................................... 274 TABLE 18. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE INTEGRATED URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR BUCHAREST CITY (IUDS B), THE REAL ESTATE THEME. ......................................................................................................................................... 278 TABLE 19. THE TWELVE BUILDING SYSTEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE ENSEMBLES DOCUMENTED BY REFERENCES ................................ 297 TABLE 20. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF RESIDENTIAL ENSEMBLES DOCUMENTED FROM THE REFERENCE LIST ; ............................. 300 TABLE 21. MOST IMPORTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS, IDENTIFIED BY SECTOR 5 RESIDENTS................................ 333 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC SPACES SUCH AS MARKETS, SQUARES, PEDESTRIAN AREAS ............................................... 4 FIGURE 2. SATISFACTION WITH THE STREETS AND BUILDINGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD .............................................................. 5 FIGURE 3. DEFINING ELEMENTS OF THE SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC SPACE ..................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 4. EVOLUTION OF BUILT AREAS AND DENSIFICATION OF BUCHAREST ....................................................................... 10 FIGURE 5. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOODS, REAL ESTATE ADVERTISEMENT AREAS, SECTORS AND REAL ESTATE SUB-MARKETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 6. MAIN AREAS FOR LOGISTICS (LEFT), COMMERCE (CENTER) AND JOBS (RIGHT) ........................................................ 14 FIGURE 7. BUCHAREST BY SECTORS .......................................................................................................................... 15 FIGURE 8. MAIN FUNCTIONAL AREAS, ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS INCLUDED IN THE ZONAL URBAN PLANS (PUZS) BY SECTORS AND TO THOSE INCLUDED IN THE GENERAL URBAN PLAN (PUG), APPROVED IN 2001 .................................................. 17 FIGURE 9. AREAS OF COLLECTIVE DWELLINGS (RED), INDIVIDUAL HOUSING (GREEN) AND CENTRAL AREA (PURPLE) ........................ 18 FIGURE 10. MAIN CONCENTRATIONS OF AMENITIES OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE CORRELATED WITH POPULATION DENSITY .................. 19 FIGURE 11. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NORTH-AUREL VLAICU AREA: ON THE LEFT, IN 2002, ON THE RIGHT, IN 2019. .............. 21 FIGURE 12. URBAN SPRAWL AT THE CAPITAL PERIPHERY ............................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 13. URBAN SPRAWL OF BUCHAREST AND OF ITS PERI-URBAN AREA IN 2002-2019 (2017) ......................................... 23 FIGURE 14. MAIN EXPANSION AREAS IN BUCHAREST AND ITS PROXIMITY ........................................................................... 24 FIGURE 15. DENSIFICATION PROCESS IN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND IN THE CENTRAL AREA................................... 26 FIGURE 16. THE PROCESS OF TURNING GREEN AREAS AND SIDEWALKS INTO RESIDENTIAL PARKING LOTS IN AVIAȚIEI NEIGHBORHOOD 27 FIGURE 17. MAIN LAND RESERVES OF BUCHAREST ....................................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 18: NUMBER OF AVAILABLE HOUSING, IN 1,000 PERSONS ................................................................................... 34 FIGURE 19: NUMBER OF DWELLINGS COMPLETED ANNUALLY, IN 1,000 PERSONS ................................................................ 34 FIGURE 20: BUILDING PERMITS (BP) ISSUED, IN 1,000 INHABITANTS ............................................................................... 35 FIGURE 21: AVERAGE LIVING SPACE, PER PERSON ........................................................................................................ 35 FIGURE 22: RENTAL PRICES FOR DWELLINGS ............................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 23: COST OF BUILDING ............................................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 24. DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING STOCK (%), BY CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, BY SECTOR, IN 2011 ....................................... 37 FIGURE 25. AVAILABLE HOUSING STOCK IN 2001-2018, BY TYPE OF PROPERTY .................................................................. 38 FIGURE 26. SHARE OF PRIVATELY OWNED HOUSING STOCK. ANNUAL EVOLUTION FOR 2001-2018 .......................................... 39 FIGURE 27: DYNAMICS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DWELLING STOCK. EVOLUTION (PERCENTAGES), COMPARED TO 2008.................. 39 FIGURE 28. AVAILABLE DWELLING STOCK, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY. ANNUAL EVOLUTION, IN 1,000 PERSONS ................... 40 FIGURE 29: DWELLINGS COMPLETED AT THE END OF THE YEAR, BY THEIR SOURCE OF FINANCING .............................................. 41 FIGURE 30: DWELLINGS COMPLETED AT THE END OF THE YEAR, PRIVATE FUNDS................................................................... 41 FIGURE 31: DWELLINGS COMPLETED AT THE END OF THE YEAR, PRIVATE FUNDS COMPARATIVE EVOLUTION, IN 1,000 PERSONS ...... 42 FIGURE 32: DWELLINGS COMPLETED AT THE END OF THE YEAR, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDS. INCREASE (PERCENTAGE), COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEAR ........................................................................................................................................... 42 FIGURE 33: NEW DWELLINGS COMPLETED AT THE END OF THE YEAR, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDS. EVOLUTION (PERCENTAGES), COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEAR ....................................................................................................................... 43 FIGURE 34: DWELLING STOCK FINANCED FROM PUBLIC FUNDS. ANNUAL EVOLUTION, IN 1,000 PERSONS .................................. 43 FIGURE 35. BUILDING PERMITS (BP) ISSUED FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND THEIR FLOOR AREA IN BUCHAREST. EVOLUTION (PERCENTAGES), COMPARED TO 2008 .............................................................................................................. 44 FIGURE 36. BUILDING PERMITS (BP) ISSUED FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. EVOLUTION (PERCENTAGES), COMPARED TO 2008........ 45 FIGURE 37. RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA APPROVED IN THE BUILDING PERMITS. EVOLUTION (PERCENTAGES), COMPARED TO 2008 ..... 45 FIGURE 38. RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA IN THE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED. ANNUAL COMPARATIVE EVOLUTION, IN 1,000 PERSONS ... 46 FIGURE 39: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING STOCK BY SECTORS AND TYPOLOGY, IN 2011 ........................................................... 46 FIGURE 40: AVERAGE FLOOR AREA, IN SQUARE METERS PER PERSON. ANNUAL EVOLUTION .................................................... 47 FIGURE 41: AVERAGE USEFUL FLOOR AREA AVAILABLE PER PERSON, BY SECTOR, BY BUILDING AGE, FOR INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS, IN 2011 ....................................................................................................................................................... 48 FIGURE 42: AVERAGE USEFUL FLOOR AREA AVAILABLE PER PERSON, BY SECTOR, BY BUILDING AGE, FOR COLLECTIVE DWELLINGS, IN 2011 ....................................................................................................................................................... 48 FIGURE 43. AVERAGE NUMBER OF LIVING QUARTERS IN A DWELLING BY SECTOR , BY BUILDING AGE, FOR INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS ..... 49 FIGURE 44: AVERAGE NUMBER OF LIVING QUARTERS IN A DWELLING BY SECTOR , BY BUILDING AGE, FOR INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS ..... 49 FIGURE 45: AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING BY SECTOR, BY BUILDING AGE, FOR COLLECTIVE DWELLINGS ................ 50 FIGURE 46: AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING BY SECTOR, BY BUILDING AGE, FOR COLLECTIVE DWELLING ................. 50 FIGURE 47. DWELLING STOCK STRUCTURE, BY TYPE OF USE ............................................................................................ 51 FIGURE 48. DWELLING STOCK STRUCTURE, BY DEGREE OF OCCUPANCY. ............................................................................. 51 FIGURE 49: SHARE OF DWELLINGS WITH TWO OR MORE HOUSEHOLDS, BY SECTOR, BY BUILDING AGE, FOR INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS .. 52 FIGURE 50: SHARE OF DWELLINGS WITH TWO OR MORE HOUSEHOLDS, BY SECTOR, BY BUILDING AGE, FOR COLLECTIVE DWELLINGS .. 53 FIGURE 51. INHABITANTS AGED 0 TO 14 YEARS OLD IN 2011, PERCENTAGES ...................................................................... 55 FIGURE 52. INHABITANTS AGED 15 TO 64 YEARS OLD IN 2011, PERCENTAGES .................................................................... 57 FIGURE 53. INHABITANTS OLDER THAN 64 YEARS OLD IN 2011, PERCENTAGES ................................................................... 58 FIGURE 54. PEOPLE AGED 0-19 YEARS OLD, PERCENTAGES ............................................................................................ 59 FIGURE 55. PEOPLE AGED 20-34 YEARS OLD, PERCENTAGES .......................................................................................... 59 FIGURE 56. PEOPLE AGED 35-54 YEARS OLD, PERCENTAGES .......................................................................................... 59 FIGURE 57. PEOPLE AGED 55-64 YEARS OLD, PERCENTAGES .......................................................................................... 59 FIGURE 58. PEOPLE OLDER THAN 64 YEARS OLD, PERCENTAGES ...................................................................................... 59 FIGURE 59. HOUSING BUILT IN 1981-1990, PERCENTAGES ........................................................................................... 61 FIGURE 60. HOUSING BUILT IN 1991-2011, PERCENTAGES ........................................................................................... 62 FIGURE 61. COVERAGE WITH AMENITIES ................................................................................................................... 63 FIGURE 62. LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE EXISTING AMENITIES IN THE AREA ................................................................. 64 FIGURE 63. REJUVENATION INDEX AND RESIDENTIAL STOCK AGE ...................................................................................... 66 FIGURE 64. CURRENT STAGE OF THERMAL REHABILITATION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, JANUARY 2020 ................................... 67 FIGURE 65. DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL AND REPRESENTATIVE PUBLIC SPACES ......................................................................... 71 FIGURE 66. TYPE OF TOILETS IN BUCHAREST ............................................................................................................... 73 FIGURE 67. PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC TOILETS MANAGED BY INSTITUTIONS IN BUCHAREST ....................................................... 73 FIGURE 68. DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC TOILETS IN BUCHAREST ......................................................................................... 74 FIGURE 69. TYPES OF WATER INSTALLATIONS IN BUCHAREST .......................................................................................... 75 FIGURE 70. DISTRIBUTION OF POINT-LIKE, ABANDONED, LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES IN BUCHAREST ...................................... 76 FIGURE 71. DISTRIBUTION OF POINT-LIKE SPACES COVERING LESS THAN 500 M2 AND MORE THAN 500 M2 IN BUCHAREST ............. 78 FIGURE 72. PLAYGROUNDS IN THE LARGE RESIDENTIAL ENSEMBLES .................................................................................. 78 FIGURE 73. DISTRIBUTION OF POINT-LIKE SPACES, BY SECTORS ........................................................................................ 79 FIGURE 74. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION SCHOOL YARDS IN BUCHAREST WHICH COULD BE USED OUTSIDE SCHOOL HOURS 80 FIGURE 75. DISTRIBUTION OF ABANDONED SPACES IN BUCHAREST ................................................................................... 82 FIGURE 76. SPACES IDENTIFIED AS ABANDONED SPACES, COVERING MORE THAN 4.000 M2 AND THE POPULATION SERVED OVER A 10- MINUTE DISTANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 83 FIGURE 77. DISTRIBUTION OF ABANDONED SPACES, BY SECTOR ....................................................................................... 84 FIGURE 78. EXAMPLES OF ABANDONED SPACES: .......................................................................................................... 84 FIGURE 79. DISTRIBUTION OF LINEAR SPACES IN RELATION TO EXISTING AND PROPOSED BICYCLE LANES ..................................... 86 FIGURE 80. PUBLIC SPACE INTERVENTIONS PROPOSED BY IUDP ...................................................................................... 92 FIGURE 81. FINANCIAL RESOURCES ALLOCATED FOR PUBLIC SPACES (RED) VERSUS OTHER CATEGORIES INCLUDED IN SUMP BUCHAREST. .............................................................................................................................................. 93 FIGURE 82. AREAS WHICH PRIORITIES NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORT FOR 2020. ................................................................. 94 FIGURE 83. MINOR STREETS NETWORK IN THE AREA OF STUDY ........................................................................................ 96 FIGURE 84. MAJOR STREETS NETWORK IN THE AREA OF STUDY. ....................................................................................... 97 FIGURE 85. PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN THE CENTRAL AREA AND IN THE PILOT AREA ANALYZED ............................ 98 FIGURE 86. TRANSIT STREET MODEL (PARALLEL, UNINTERRUPTED FLOWS) - 1 ................................................................... 100 FIGURE 87. FIELD REALITY. PICTOR THEODOR AMAN STREET, SECTOR 1 - 2 ..................................................................... 100 FIGURE 88. REALISTIC IMAGE OF A PEDESTRIAN FLOW - 3 ............................................................................................ 100 FIGURE 89. NOLLI MAP FOR THE PILOT AREA ............................................................................................................ 102 FIGURE 90 TYPES OF PARKING LOTS IN THE PILOT AREA ............................................................................................... 103 FIGURE 91 DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES OF PARKING LOTS IN THE PILOT AREA ......................................................................... 104 FIGURE 92 REPRESENTATION OF THE THIRD SPACE IN THE PILOT AREA ............................................................................. 106 FIGURE 93. REPRESENTATION “THIRD SPACE” - 1 ...................................................................................................... 107 FIGURE 94. DELIMITATION OF THE THIRD SPACE ACCORDING TO THE STREET REALITY - 2 ...................................................... 107 FIGURE 95. CURRENT STREET USE PRACTICES - 3 ....................................................................................................... 107 FIGURE 96. RUDIMENTS OF STREET PLOTS - 4 ........................................................................................................... 107 FIGURE 97. THIRD SPACE SURFACE IN THE PILOT AREA ................................................................................................. 108 FIGURE 98. STREET PLANNING SCENARIO RESULTED AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INSTRUMENTS PROPOSED ................... 110 FIGURE 99. DISTRIBUTION OF SURFACE SPACES ......................................................................................................... 113 FIGURE 100. DISTRIBUTION OF SURFACE SPACES, BY SECTOR ........................................................................................ 114 FIGURE 101. PARKS WHICH NEED REHABILITATION AND POPULATION SERVED OVER A 10-MINUTE WALK DISTANCE .................... 115 FIGURE 102. MAIN LAND RESERVES OF BUCHAREST AND THE NEW PARKS PROPOSED BY THE SECTOR PUZS.............................. 116 FIGURE 103. HOUSE PRICE INDEX: EURO AREA AND EU AGGREGATES; ANNUAL GROWTH RATE............................................. 118 FIGURE 104. HOUSE PRICE INDEX: EVOLUTION 2014 Q1 – 2019 Q2 ........................................................................... 118 FIGURE 105. DISTRIBUTION OF NEW AND EXISTING HOUSING IN TOTAL HOUSING , 2019 ..................................................... 119 FIGURE 106. AVERAGE PRICE PER SQUARE METER OF AN APARTMENT IN THE MAIN EUROPEAN CITIES, 1ST SEMESTER 2019 ........ 119 FIGURE 107. AVERAGE MONTHLY RENTAL COST FOR A 2-ROOM APARTMENT (UTILITIES INCLUDED) IN THE MAIN EUROPEAN CITIES IN 2018 (CALCULATED BY: WWW.STATISTA.COM) ................................................................................................ 120 FIGURE 108. ABILITY TO FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN EU CAPITAL CITIES ...................................................................... 121 FIGURE 109. DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY TENURE STATUS IN 2017........................................................................ 121 FIGURE 110. THE MOST ACTIVE 10 EUROPEAN MARKETS, C4 2017 - Q3 2018, BILLION EUR ............................................. 123 FIGURE 111. TAKE-UP RATE FOR OFFICE SPACES 2018, 2017 AND 2016........................................................................ 123 FIGURE 112. OFFICE MARKET IN EUROPE - VACANCY RATE OF PRIME OFFICE SPACES (2018 AND 2016) ................................. 124 FIGURE 113. PRIME RENTAL VALUE FOR OFFICE SPACES IN EUROPE, S2 2019 .................................................................. 125 FIGURE 114. NET PRIME YIELDS IN EUROPEAN CITIES, 2018 ........................................................................................ 126 FIGURE 115. SINGLE PERSON MONTHLY COSTS AND FOUR-PERSON FAMILY MONTHLY COSTS; COST OF LIVING INDEX AND POSITION IN THE CITY RANKING (ACCORDING TO NUMBEO) FOR BUCHAREST, WARSAW, PRAGUE, SOFIA AND BUDAPEST. ................... 129 FIGURE 116. MONTHLY RENT COSTS FOR A 1-BEDROOM APARTMENT OR A 3-BEDROOM APARTMENT, DEPENDING ON THEIR LOCATION (IN CITY CENTER OR OUTSIDE CITY CENTER); COST OF LIVING INDEX AND POSITION IN THE CITY RANKING (ACCORDING TO NUMBEO) FOR BUCHAREST, WARSAW, PRAGUE, SOFIA AND BUDAPEST. ................................................................ 130 FIGURE 117. AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE FOR 1 APARTMENT, DEPENDING ON ITS LOCATION (IN CITY CENTER OR OUTSIDE CITY CENTER); BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURE AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASS PRICES (ACCORDING TO NUMBEO) FOR BUCHAREST, WARSAW, PRAGUE, SOFIA AND BUDAPEST. ................................................................................................................... 131 FIGURE 118. THE OFFICE SPACE MARKET IN BUCHAREST, WARSAW, PRAGUE, SOFIA AND BUDAPEST. .................................... 132 FIGURE 119. RETAIL BUILDINGS MARKET FOR BUCHAREST, WARSAW, PRAGUE, SOFIA AND B UDAPEST ................................... 133 FIGURE 120. INDUSTRIAL SPACE MARKET FOR BUCHAREST, WARSAW, P RAGUE, SOFIA AND BUDAPEST .................................. 134 FIGURE 121. BUILDING PERMITS (BP) BY AUTHORIZED AREA (M2), FOR ALL BUILDING CATEGORIES IN BUCHAREST AND ILFOV, DISTRIBUTION IN 2019 ............................................................................................................................... 136 FIGURE 122. BUILDING PERMITS (BP) FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SEGMENT, BY AUTHORIZED AREA (M2), FOR ALL BUILDING CATEGORIES IN BUCHAREST AND ILFOV (2008-2019) ........................................................................................................... 136 FIGURE 123. BUILDING PERMITS (BP) ISSUED FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS FOR COMMUNITIES IN ILFOV COUNTY ...................... 137 FIGURE 124. BUILDING PERMITS (BP) ISSUED FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, EXCLUDING THOSE FOR COMMUNITIES IN ILFOV COUNTY ............................................................................................................................................................ 138 FIGURE 125. HOUSING STOCK (APARTMENTS AND HOUSES) IN BUCHAREST AND ILFOV COUNTY FOR 2008-2018 ..................... 139 FIGURE 126. ANNUAL EVOLUTION OF AVERAGE PRICES PER M2 FLOOR AREA FOR APARTMENTS ............................................. 140 FIGURE 127. ANNUAL EVOLUTION OF AVERAGE PRICES PER M2 FLOOR AREA FOR APARTMENTS ............................................. 141 FIGURE 128. COMPARISON AVERAGE PRICE/M2 FLOOR AREA FOR APARTMENTS IN CLUJ–NAPOCA, BUCHAREST, TIMIȘOARA, CONSTANȚA AND BRAȘOV (DECEMBER 2019) ................................................................................................. 142 FIGURE 129. AVERAGE MONTHLY RENT VALUES FOR A 2-ROOM APARTMENT BUILT IN 1980-2000 ....................................... 143 FIGURE 130. OFFICE SPACE DELIVERIES IN THE REGIONAL CITIES AND IN BUCHAREST ........................................................... 144 FIGURE 131. OFFICE SPACE MARKET IN BUCHAREST, BRAȘOV, CLUJ-NAPOCA, TIMIȘOARA, IAȘI ............................................ 144 FIGURE 132. STRUCTURE AND DENSITY OF MODERN RETAIL BUILDING STOCKS................................................................... 145 FIGURE 133. EVOLUTION OF PRIME RENTAL VALUES IN SHOPPING CENTERS AND ALONG COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL ROADS .............. 146 FIGURE 134. RETAIL BUILDINGS MARKET IN CLUJ-NAPOCA, ORADEA, TIMIȘOARA, IAȘI, BRAȘOV, AND BUCHAREST .................... 147 FIGURE 135. LOCATION OF MAIN INDUSTRIAL AND LOGISTICS SPACES IN THE BUCHAREST-ILFOV REGION ................................. 148 FIGURE 136. EVOLUTION OF NEW INDUSTRIAL AND LOGISTICS SPACES AT NATIONAL LEVEL ................................................... 148 FIGURE 137. INDUSTRIAL SPACE MARKET IN CLUJ-NAPOCA, TIMIȘOARA, BRAȘOV, PITEȘTI, PLOIEȘTI AND BUCHAREST ................ 149 FIGURE 138. DWELLINGS BUILT AFTER 1990 ........................................................................................................... 150 FIGURE 139. NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, COMPLETED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN 2018-2021, AVAILABLE FOR SALE: CLASSIFICATION BY THE NUMBER OF APARTMENT UNITS ...................................................................................... 154 FIGURE 140. EVOLUTION OF AVERAGE SALE PRICES 2019 VERSUS 2008, BY APARTMENT TYPE ............................................. 155 FIGURE 141. PRICE EVOLUTION S01/2008 VERSUS S01/2019, BY REAL ESTATE ADVERTISEMENT AREAS................................ 158 FIGURE 142. BREAKDOWN OF BUCHAREST BY REAL ESTATE SUB-MARKETS AND DIRECTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF BUCHAREST ........ 159 FIGURE 143. NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, COMPLETED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN 2018-2021, CLASSIFIED BY SELLING PRICE AND BY AVERAGE PRICE PER SECTOR ............................................................................................................... 164 FIGURE 144. NUMBER OF DWELLINGS COMPLETED IN 2016 (INS-DRS) AND AVERAGE POPULATION INCOME (JUNE 2019, ACCORDING TO IUDS SURVEYS), BY SECTOR ..................................................................................................... 166 FIGURE 145. EVOLUTION OF AVERAGE SALE PRICES 2019 VERSUS 2008, BY TYPE OF APARTMENT, BY REAL ESTATE ADVERTISEMENT AREA ...................................................................................................................................................... 168 FIGURE 146. AVERAGE PRICES BY REAL ESTATE ADVERTISEMENT AREA (EUR FOR M2) FOR STUDIOS, 2-, 3- AND +4-ROOM APARTMENTS (S01/2019).......................................................................................................................... 173 FIGURE 147. NUMBER OF LOANS GRANTED UNDER THE FIRST HOUSE PROGRAM IN 2009-2018, FOR BUCHAREST CITY AND ILFOV COUNTY ................................................................................................................................................. 178 FIGURE 148. NUMBER OF LOANS GRANTED UNDER THE FIRST HOUSE PROGRAM IN 2009-2018 FOR BUCHAREST AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF APARTMENT FOR WHICH THE LOAN WAS GRANTED ............................................................ 179 FIGURE 149. NUMBER OF LOANS GRANTED UNDER THE FIRST HOUSE PROGRAM IN 2009-2018 FOR BUCHAREST AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF APARTMENT FOR WHICH THE LOAN WAS GRANTED ............................................................ 179 FIGURE 150. NUMBER OF LOANS GRANTED UNDER THE FIRST HOUSE PROGRAM IN 2009-2018, FOR BUCHAREST AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION BY BUILDING AGE .................................................................................................................... 180 FIGURE 151. NUMBER OF LOANS GRANTED UNDER THE FIRST HOUSE PROGRAM IN 2009-2018, BY SECTOR, AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION BY BUILDING AGE ....................................................................................................................................... 180 FIGURE 152. DEMAND, BY TENANT SECTOR OF ACTIVITY .............................................................................................. 183 FIGURE 153. LOCATION OF OFFICE BUILDINGS BUILT AFTER 1990 .................................................................................. 184 FIGURE 154. ANNUAL EVOLUTION OF MODERN OFFICE BUILDING STOCKS (MILLION M2) IN 2010-S01/2019, FOR BUCHAREST CITY ............................................................................................................................................................ 185 FIGURE 155. ANALYSIS OF INDICATORS BY SUB-MARKET .............................................................................................. 186 FIGURE 156. MAIN OFFICE AREAS SUPERIMPOSED ON MAIN ARTERIAL ROADS WITH PEAK-HOUR ROAD CONGESTIONS ................. 190 FIGURE 157. SUBWAY ROUTES LOAD, CORRELATED WITH THE OFFICE BUILDING LOCATIONS .................................................. 191 FIGURE 158. AVERAGE RENT VALUES FOR SHOPPING CENTERS AND MAIN COMMERCIAL AREAS.............................................. 192 FIGURE 159. EVOLUTION OF RETAIL BUILDINGS IN BUCHAREST ..................................................................................... 193 FIGURE 160 DISTRIBUTION OF LARGE RETAILERS BY SECTOR ......................................................................................... 193 FIGURE 161. EVOLUTION OF BUILT-UP AREAS AROUND BUCHAREST AND AVAILABLE LAND RESERVES ...................................... 195 FIGURE 162. EVOLUTION OF ALL BUILDINGS SOLD, AT NATIONAL LEVEL AND BY COUNTY, IN 2009-2019 ................................ 197 FIGURE 163. EVOLUTION OF ALL BUILDINGS SOLD, BY COUNTY, (T01/2020) ................................................................... 197 FIGURE 164 EVOLUTION OF ALL INDIVIDUAL UNITS (APARTMENTS) SOLD, BY COUNTY, IN 2017 - 2019 T1 .............................. 198 FIGURE 165. EVOLUTION OF NUMBER OF LAND WITHIN THE BUILT-UP AREA SOLD IN BUCHAREST AND IN ILFOV COUNTY, IN 2017- Q01/2019 ............................................................................................................................................. 198 FIGURE 166. EVOLUTION OF AVERAGE SALE PRICES FOR LAND, 2008-S01/2019 ............................................................. 199 FIGURE 167. EVOLUTION OF ESTIMATED AVERAGE SELLING PRICES FOR LAND, BY SIZE, IN 2008-S01/2019, FOR BUCHAREST ...... 202 FIGURE 168. LAND RESERVES AVAILABLE IN BUCHAREST, BY AVERAGE PRICE BY REAL ESTATE ADVERTISEMENT AREA (AVERAGE SELLING PRICE) (S01/2019) .................................................................................................................................. 206 FIGURE 169. NEIGHBORHOOD LOCATION COMPARED TO THE CITY CENTER ....................................................................... 208 FIGURE 170. CARRIAGEWAY AND FOOTWAY ACCESSIBILITY OF NEIGHBORHOODS ............................................................... 209 FIGURE 171. ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT ............................................................................................................ 210 FIGURE 172. NEIGHBORHOODS GROUPED BY DISTRIBUTION OF BUILDINGS WITH SEISMIC RISK (MORE THAN 20 BUILDINGS PER AREA) ............................................................................................................................................................ 211 FIGURE 173. NEIGHBORHOODS GROUPED BY DISTRIBUTION OF BUILDINGS WITH DERELICT FACADES (QUICK EVALUATION OF THE AREA) ............................................................................................................................................................ 212 FIGURE 174. NEIGHBORHOODS GROUPED BY DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OLDER THAN 50 YEARS OLD ................... 213 FIGURE 175. THERMAL REHABILITATION OF APARTMENT BLOCKS: SITUATION BY SECTORS .................................................... 214 FIGURE 176. NEW INSERTIONS OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (BUILT STOCK NOT EXCEEDING 20 YEARS SINCE CONSTRUCTION) ......... 215 FIGURE 177. NEIGHBORHOODS GROUPED BY SPATIALITY/DENSITY OF BUILT AREAS ............................................................ 216 FIGURE 178. NEIGHBORHOODS GROUPED BY PRESENCE OF NATURAL ELEMENTS ................................................................ 217 FIGURE 179. NEIGHBORHOODS GROUPED BY PRESENCE OF PARKS ................................................................................. 218 FIGURE 180. NEIGHBORHOODS GROUPED BY GREEN AREAS BETWEEN APARTMENT BLOCKS AND BY SPORTS FACILITIES ................ 219 FIGURE 181. NEIGHBORHOODS GROUPED BY PRESENCE OF COMMERCIAL CENTERS ............................................................ 220 FIGURE 182. ACCESS TO EDUCATION: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS SERVING THE NEIGHBORHOODS ......... 221 FIGURE 183. ACCESS TO JOBS/EMPLOYERS .............................................................................................................. 222 FIGURE 184. NEIGHBORHOODS GROUPED BY PUBLIC INVESTMENTS ............................................................................... 223 FIGURE 185. NEIGHBORHOODS GROUPED BY PRIVATE INVESTMENTS .............................................................................. 224 FIGURE 186. SOCIAL INTERACTION ........................................................................................................................ 225 FIGURE 187. CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION: SATISFACTION WITH THEIR SECTOR .......................................................................... 226 FIGURE 188. AVERAGE PRICE PER M2 FOR STUDIOS (S01/2019) .................................................................................. 227 FIGURE 189. AVERAGE PRICE PER M2 FOR 2-ROOM APARTMENTS (S1/2019) .................................................................. 228 FIGURE 190. AVERAGE PRICE PER M2 FOR 3-ROOM APARTMENTS (S1/2019) .................................................................. 229 FIGURE 191. AVERAGE PRICE PER M2 FOR 4-ROOM APARTMENTS (S1/2019) .................................................................. 230 FIGURE 192. ACCESS TO HOUSING BY LOANS: SINGLE-BORROWER LOAN FOR HOUSING BUILT IN 1977-2000 ........................... 233 FIGURE 193. ACCESS TO HOUSING BY LOANS: FAMILY LOAN OR WITH CO-BORROWER FOR HOUSING BUILT IN 1977-2000 .......... 234 FIGURE 194. ACCESS TO HOUSING BY LOANS - SINGLE-BORROWER LOAN FOR HOUSING BUILT AFTER 2000 .............................. 237 FIGURE 195. ACCESS TO HOUSING BY LOANS: FAMILY LOAN OR WITH CO-BORROWER FOR HOUSING AFTER 2000 ...................... 238 FIGURE 196. ACCESS TO HOUSING WITHOUT LOANS: SINGLE BUYER FOR HOUSING BUILT IN 1977-2000 ................................. 241 FIGURE 197. ACCESS TO HOUSING WITHOUT LOANS: FAMILY OR 2 BUYERS FOR HOUSING BUILT IN 1977-2000 ........................ 242 FIGURE 198. ACCESS TO HOUSING WITHOUT LOANS: SINGLE BUYER FOR HOUSING BUILT AFTER 2000..................................... 245 FIGURE 199. ACCESS TO HOUSING WITHOUT LOANS: FAMILY OR 2 BUYERS FOR HOUSING BUILT AFTER 2000 ............................ 246 FIGURE 200. ATTRACTIVENESS INDEX FOR BUCHAREST, AS RESULTED FOLLOWING THE ANALYSIS ........................................... 248 FIGURE 201. A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC SPACE MANAGEMENT ................................................................... 257 FIGURE 202. AVERAGE INDICATIVE PRICE, EUR/M2, FOR A 2-ROOM APARTMENT WITHIN 10-MINUTE WALK FROM THE NEAREST SUBWAY STATION, JANUARY 2020 ................................................................................................................ 263 FIGURE 203. AVERAGE INDICATIVE MONTHLY RENT, EUR/MONTH, FOR A 2-ROOM APARTMENT WITHIN 10-MINUTE WALK FROM THE NEAREST SUBWAY STATION, JANUARY 2020 .................................................................................................... 264 FIGURE 204. DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS, BY BUILDING AGE, BY SECTOR, IN 2011 ........................................... 283 FIGURE 205. AVERAGE USEFUL FLOOR AREA OF AN INDIVIDUAL DWELLING, BY SECTOR, BY BUILDING AGE, IN SQUARE METERS, IN 2011 ............................................................................................................................................................ 284 FIGURE 206. AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN AN INDIVIDUAL DWELLING, BY SECTOR, BY BUILDING AGE, IN 2011 ............. 284 FIGURE 207. DISTRIBUTION OF COLLECTIVE DWELLINGS, BY BUILDING AGE, IN 2011 .......................................................... 285 FIGURE 208. AVERAGE USEFUL FLOOR AREA OF A COLLECTIVE DWELLING, BY SECTOR, BY BUILDING AGE, IN 2011 ...................... 285 FIGURE 209. AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN A COLLECTIVE DWELLING , BY SECTOR, BY BUILDING AGE, IN 2011 ............... 286 FIGUR2 210. DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING STOCK IN SECTOR 1, BY TYPOLOGY AND AGE, IN 2011 ........................................... 286 FIGURE 211. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING , FOR INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS IN SECTOR 1, IN 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 287 FIGURE 212. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING , FOR COLLECTIVE DWELLINGS IN SECTOR 1, IN 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 287 FIGURE 213. DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING STOCK IN SECTOR 2, BY TYPOLOGY AND AGE, IN 2011............................................ 288 FIGURE 214. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING , FOR INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS IN SECTOR 2, IN 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 288 FIGURE 215. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING , FOR COLLECTIVE DWELLINGS IN SECTOR 2, IN 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 289 FIGURE 216. DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING STOCK IN SECTOR 3, BY TYPOLOGY AND AGE, IN 2011............................................ 289 FIGURE 217. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING , FOR INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS IN SECTOR 3, IN 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 290 FIGURE 218. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING , FOR COLLECTIVE DWELLINGS IN SECTOR 3, IN 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 290 FIGURE 219. DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING STOCK IN SECTOR 4, BY TYPOLOGY AND AGE, IN 2011............................................ 291 FIGURE 220. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING , FOR INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS IN SECTOR 4, IN 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 291 FIGURE 221. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING, FOR COLLECTIVE DWELLINGS IN SECTOR 4, IN 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 292 FIGURE 222. DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING STOCK IN SECTOR 5, BY TYPOLOGY AND AGE, IN 2011............................................ 292 FIGURE 223. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING, FOR INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS IN SECTOR 5, IN 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 293 FIGURE 224. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING , FOR COLLECTIVE DWELLINGS IN SECTOR 5, IN 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 293 FIGURE 225. DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING STOCK IN SECTOR 6, BY TYPOLOGY AND AGE, IN 2011............................................ 294 FIGURE 226. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING , FOR INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS IN SECTOR 6, IN 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 294 FIGURE 227. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A DWELLING , FOR COLLECTIVE DWELLINGS IN SECTOR 6, IN 2011 ................................................................................................................................... 295 FIGURE 228. POINT-LIKE, ABANDONED, LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES IN SECTOR 1 ............................................................ 319 FIGURE 229. STATISTICAL DATA ON POINT-LIKE AND ABANDONED SPACES , SECTOR 1.......................................................... 320 FIGURE 230. STATISTICAL DATA ON LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES, SECTOR 1 .................................................................... 321 FIGURE 231. POINT-LIKE, ABANDONED, LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES IN SECTOR 2 ............................................................ 322 FIGURE 232. STATISTICAL DATA ON POINT-LIKE AND ABANDONED SPACES , SECTOR 2.......................................................... 323 FIGURE 233. STATISTICAL DATA ON LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES, SECTOR 2 .................................................................... 324 FIGURE 234. POINT-LIKE, ABANDONED, LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES IN SECTOR 3 ............................................................ 325 FIGURE 235. STATISTICAL DATA ON POINT-LIKE AND ABANDONED SPACES , SECTOR 3.......................................................... 326 FIGURE 236. STATISTICAL DATA ON LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES, SECTOR 3 .................................................................... 327 FIGURE 237. POINT-LIKE, ABANDONED, LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES IN SECTOR 4 ............................................................ 328 FIGURE 238. STATISTICAL DATA ON POINT-LIKE SPACES, SECTOR 4 ................................................................................. 329 FIGURE 239. STATISTICAL DATA ON ABANDONED, LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES, SECTOR 4 .................................................. 330 FIGURE 240. POINT-LIKE, ABANDONED, LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES IN SECTOR 5 ............................................................ 331 FIGURE 241. STATISTICAL DATA ON POINT-LIKE SPACES, SECTOR 5 ................................................................................. 334 FIGURE 242. STATISTICAL DATA ON LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES, SECTOR 5 .................................................................... 335 FIGURE 243. POINT-LIKE, ABANDONED, LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES IN SECTOR 6 ............................................................ 336 FIGURE 244. STATISTICAL DATA ON POINT-LIKE AND ABANDONED SPACES , SECTOR 6.......................................................... 338 FIGURE 245. STATISTICAL DATA ON LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES, SECTOR 6 .................................................................... 339 FIGURE 246. EXAMPLES OF POINT-LIKE SPACES IN SECTOR 1 ........................................................................................ 340 FIGURE 247. EXAMPLES OF LINEAR SPACES IN SECTOR 1.............................................................................................. 340 FIGURE 248. EXAMPLES OF SURFACE SPACES IN SECTOR 1 ........................................................................................... 341 FIGURE 249. EXAMPLES OF POINT-LIKE SPACES IN SECTOR 2 ........................................................................................ 342 FIGURE 250. EXAMPLES OF LINEAR SPACES IN SECTOR 2.............................................................................................. 342 FIGURE 251. EXAMPLES OF SURFACE SPACES IN SECTOR 2 ........................................................................................... 343 FIGURE 252. EXAMPLES OF POINT-LIKE SPACES IN SECTOR 3 ........................................................................................ 344 FIGURE 253. EXAMPLES OF LINEAR SPACES IN SECTOR 3.............................................................................................. 345 FIGURE 254. EXAMPLES OF SURFACE SPACES IN SECTOR 3 ........................................................................................... 346 FIGURE 255. EXAMPLES OF POINT-LIKE SPACES IN SECTOR 4 ........................................................................................ 347 FIGURE 256. EXAMPLES OF LINEAR SPACES IN SECTOR 4.............................................................................................. 348 FIGURE 257. EXAMPLES OF SURFACE SPACES IN SECTOR 4 ........................................................................................... 349 FIGURE 258. EXAMPLES OF POINT-LIKE SPACES IN SECTOR 5 ........................................................................................ 350 FIGURE 259. EXAMPLES OF LINEAR SPACES IN SECTOR 5.............................................................................................. 351 FIGURE 260. EXAMPLES OF SURFACE SPACES IN SECTOR 5 ........................................................................................... 351 FIGURE 261. EXAMPLES OF POINT-LIKE SPACES IN SECTOR 6 ........................................................................................ 352 FIGURE 262. EXAMPLES OF LINEAR SPACES IN SECTOR 6.............................................................................................. 353 FIGURE 263. EXAMPLES OF SURFACE SPACES IN SECTOR 6 ........................................................................................... 354 1 INTRODUCTION This Chapter addresses the following three main topics: • Housing in Bucharest, with an explicit focus on the period prior 1990. Housing after 1990 is analyzed under the section dedicated to the real estate market in Bucharest. The analysis builds mostly on the research on housing in Bucharest, the results of which has been regularly published in the past years. Also, the analysis brings together in a systematic manner the information published by Romanian journals of architecture and urban planning, transferred in a unitary database. In order to engage readers and possible collaborators interested in the topic of housing in Bucharest, we published all information on a webpage dedicated both to professionals and to the public.1It is the first time when such information is systematized in an easily accessible place, where differences in terms of quality and quantity of information available becomes easily visible; • Public spaces in Bucharest: here, the analysis is divided in two main parts. The first component includes an empirical analysis of the public spaces in Bucharest, classified according to their spatial configuration.2 The need for this analysis became obvious as, so far, there has been no quantitative and qualitative analysis on the public spaces that would provide an overview on state-of-the-art in Bucharest. More specifically, the component aims to order systematically the field information for each type of space and to provide a clear and synthetic graphic representation of the results. The systematization work underpinning this analysis was exacting as it required, beyond thorough study on the Google Maps platform, various field trips to validate the information gathered online. Because data cover both the city center and the neighborhoods of the city, this component also includes an analysis on the public spaces in the large socialist building ensembles. It also comprises a brief theoretical discussion on the importance of public spaces in enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of the city. The second component of the study is essentially a more in-depth analysis on the issue of the street in the central area of the Bucharest City, seen as an essential part of the public space. It also provides recommendations to rethink this type of space which is specific to Bucharest. • The analysis of the real estate market in Bucharest: Economic growth, workforce diversification and specialization, investments in infrastructure and planned development are just a few of the key aspects which structured and defined the City of Bucharest. The analysis of the real estate market is a necessary instrument for many actors or decision-makers who play an important role in urban development, regardless whether they operate in the public or in the private sector. This is a very useful instrument in all stages, from the planning to the marketing of a developed area, with the specific goal to mitigate risks, to open new development opportunities which would enhance the attractiveness of an area, while providing opportunities for a balanced development of the city, due to the sustainable use of the available real estate resources. If the real estate analysis uses statistical data, just like any analysis, their interpretation should consider the market activity at European or global level. Architecture, the construction materials used in the project, the appearance or the quality of finishes, all these influence the perception and negotiation terms for selling or rental prices. In any public or private decision-making process, the analysis of the real estate market is crucial in establishing the location, project size, features and facilities, target audience, as well 1Available at: https://bit.ly/2kLpF3V (December 2020). 2According to the methodology of this study, public spaces are divided in three main components: surface spaces, point-like spaces and linear spaces. 1 as in setting the prices and the development stages. Usually, the analysis of the real estate market if the study of demand and supply. The demand is represented by the end-users - buyers or tenants of residential units, commercial property or stores, industrial or manufacturing areas, office spaces, hotels etc. The supply is represented by the competition in the real estate market: sellers and owners. The market analysis identifies potential users of real estate property, both buyers and tenants, and the characteristics of their groups. Each of the three main topics starts from a set of assumptions. Thus: • The analysis of housing in Bucharest builds on the following assumptions: • There is already a consistent body of research on housing in Bucharest, the results of which can be systematized.3 Moreover, some of them can also be localized. Although it requires thorough work, such an exercise clearly illustrates still existing gaps in research on housing in Bucharest; • Similarly, foreign specialist literature is already mature enough to produce consistent sets of operational information which can be used, after a comparative analysis, to build the Integrated Development Strategy of Bucharest City (IUDS B);4 • Although difficult to measure, housing quality has a significant impact on the quality of life. Next to income and income distribution,5 it is one of the three dimensions of the material living conditions. Consequently, it was studied by each of the four generations of the European Quality of Life Surveys (EQLS).6 Moreover, building on these surveys and on subsequent research,7 it is now possible to benchmark the quality of housing in European context and in national context. • Similarly, analysis of public spaces in Bucharest builds on the following assumptions: • Currently, there is no information on the condition of most public spaces at city scale; • Building on clearly systematized information which reflects reality as accurately as possible, future public policies on public spaces become much easier to design, implement and monitor; • The quality of public spaces in neighborhoods of apartment blocks is still very poor. Along the years, these spaces suffered successive changes. Although such changes sometimes responded to local needs at that time, in general there was no overall vision and, with time, they defaced the overall image. • The street is not yet unanimously recognized as potential quality urban space. The manner in which it is adapted to the requirements of quality public space and the manner in which it is managed can contribute to turning it into quality, comfortable public space. • The data gathered by Eurostat in the Eurobarometer 2015 indicate low satisfaction with public spaces such as markets, squares or pedestrian areas among Bucharest inhabitants. At European level, Bucharest ranks among the lowest in terms of inhabitants’ satisfaction with the quality of public spaces. The analysis of the satisfaction with buildings and streets in the neighborhood among Bucharest inhabitants returned similar results (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). 3 See Calotă, 2017; Tulbure, 2016; Suditu, 2016; Stroe, 2015; Panaitescu, 2012; Caffé and Florian, 1987; Derer, 1977 and 1985; Rău and Mihuță, 1969 and Pop et al., 1968. 4 See Bizer et al., 2010; Röber and Sinning, 2010; Bizer et al., 2009. 5 See Hanell, 2018: 144ff. 6 European Quality of Life Surveys/EQLS. More information available at: https://bit.ly/2T8X5bT (December 2020). The European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) is conducted by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions/Eurofound every four or five years. Thus, the first survey was conducted in 2003, the second in 2007, the third in 2011 and the latest in 2016. Romania participated in all four surveys. 7 See Hanell, 2018. 2 • The analysis of the real estate market in Bucharest starts from the following assumptions: • In any public or private decision-making process, the analysis of the real estate market is crucial in establishing the location, project size, features and facilities, target audience, as well as in setting the prices and the development stages. • A strong real estate market as a whole does not necessarily mean good development opportunity, just like a less developed market does not mean it cannot support a good development idea/concept. An in-depth analysis of the market can reveal less obvious opportunities. • Against the background of the housing analysis, the real estate analysis adds to the picture on population access to housing (defined in specialist literature as affordability); also, the real estate analysis can reveal further development options for this city, the evolution of which has been strongly influenced by foreign investment. 3 Figure 1. Satisfaction with public spaces such as markets, squares, pedestrian areas Very happy Rather happy Rather unhappy Not happy at all I don’t know Zurich 53% 40% 1% 5% 1% Stockholm 47% 43% 7% 3%0% Luxembourg 46% 43% 7% 4% 0% Wien 41% 47% 10% 0% 2% Oslo 36% 44% 16% 4% 0% Geneva 36% 50% 9% 3% 2% Munich 34% 48% 14% 3% 1% Rennes 33% 54% 8% 3% 2% Ljubljana 31% 45% 17% 7% 0% Helsinki 31% 56% 11% 1% 1% Antalya 29% 34% 22% 15% 0% Belfast 29% 44% 18% 7% 2% Strasbourg 29% 53% 12% 6% 0% Dublin 28% 43% 18% 10% 1% Amsterdam 28% 52% 14% 6% 0% Copenhagen 26% 51% 16% 6% 1% London 25% 49% 16% 9% 1% Glasgow 23% 45% 17% 14% 1% Manchester 22% 45% 19% 13% 1% Nicosia 20% 41% 21% 18% 0% Zagreb 20% 43% 27% 10% 0% Prague 19% 55% 20% 5% 1% Istanbul 17% 30% 21% 32% 0% Cluj Napoca 17% 44% 23% 15% 1% Reykjavik 16% 36% 28% 17% 3% Hamburg 16% 44% 30% 9% 1% Brussels 16% 46% 26% 11% 1% Barcelona 16% 55% 18% 10% 1% Warsaw 16% 58% 20% 5% 1% Valletta 15% 31% 26% 27% 1% Tallinn 15% 42% 29% 13% 1% Madrid 14% 34% 27% 24% 1% Vilnius 14% 45% 30% 10% 1% Piatra Neamt 14% 48% 21% 16% 1% Berlin 13% 46% 27% 13% 1% Bologna 12% 40% 35% 13% 0% Paris 12% 56% 20% 12% 0% Budapest 11% 58% 23% 8% 0% Riga 9% 44% 35% 12% 0% BUCHAREST 8% 34% 31% 26% 1% Bratislava 8% 47% 33% 12% 0% Napoli 5% 17% 32% 46% 0% Sofia 4% 24% 38% 33% 1% Athens 4% 29% 28% 39% 0% Lisboa 4% 36% 38% 22% 0% Rome 2% 18% 34% 46% 0% Source: Eurobarometer, 2015 4 Figure 2. Satisfaction with the streets and buildings in the neighborhood Very happy Rather happy Rather unhappy Not happy at all I don’t know Zurich 53% 40% 1% 5% 1% Stockholm 47% 43% 7% 0% 3% Luxembourg 46% 43% 7% 4%0% Wien 41% 47% 10% 0% 2% Geneva 36% 50% 9% 3%2% Oslo 36% 44% 16% 4%0% Munich 34% 48% 14% 3%1% Rennes 33% 54% 8% 3%2% Ljubljana 31% 45% 17% 7% 0% Helsinki 31% 56% 11% 1% 1% Belfast 29% 44% 18% 7% 2% Antalya 29% 34% 22% 15% 0% Strasbourg 29% 53% 12% 6% 0% Amsterdam 28% 52% 14% 6% 0% Dublin 28% 43% 18% 10% 1% Copenhagen 26% 51% 16% 6% 1% London 25% 49% 16% 9% 1% Glasgow 23% 45% 17% 14% 1% Manchester 22% 45% 19% 13% 1% Nicosia 20% 41% 21% 18% 0% Zagreb 20% 43% 27% 10% 0% Prague 19% 55% 20% 5% 1% Istanbul 17% 30% 21% 32% 0% Cluj Napoca 17% 44% 23% 15% 1% Warsaw 16% 58% 20% 5% 1% Reykjavik 16% 36% 28% 17% 3% Barcelona 16% 55% 18% 10% 1% Hamburg 16% 44% 30% 9% 1% Brussels 16% 46% 26% 11% 1% Valletta 15% 31% 26% 27% 1% Tallinn 15% 42% 29% 13% 1% Vilnius 14% 45% 30% 10% 1% Madrid 14% 34% 27% 24% 1% Piatra Neamt 14% 48% 21% 16% 1% Berlin 13% 46% 27% 13% 1% Bologna 12% 40% 35% 13% 0% Paris 12% 56% 20% 12% 0% Budapest 11% 58% 23% 8% 0% Riga 9% 44% 35% 12% 0% Bratislava 8% 47% 33% 12% 0% BUCHAREST 8% 34% 31% 26% 1% Napoli 5% 17% 32% 46% 0% Lisboa 4% 36% 38% 22% 0% Athens 4% 29% 28% 39% 0% Sofia 4% 24% 38% 33% 1% Rome 2% 18% 34% 46% 0% Source: Eurobarometer, 2015 5 2 METHODOLOGY This section provides a brief description of the approaches used for each of the three main topics tackled by this study. 2.1 The approach on housing in Bucharest The following should be mentioned about housing in Bucharest: 1 The sets of data on housing provided by the National Institute of Statistics through the Tempo Database have uneven granularity. More specifically, some of the housing indicators are only available at county level, while others are also available at local level. Since we were confronted with this patchy image, we were careful to present it as such; 2 An accurate statistical analysis comparing Bucharest with other EU cities is rather difficult, given the granularity of data provided by the European Statistical Office (Eurostat). Where possible, the analyses will have to be limited to county level (NUTS 3)8 or to regional level (NUTS 2); 3 The information available in the Romanian journal of architecture and urban planning, which could be used to develop a profile of the Bucharest neighborhoods or, more specifically, to draft it at the scale of housing ensembles, is inconsistent. Therefore, there will be neighborhoods and ensembles in Bucharest which are more carefully detailed, next to neighborhoods on which we could not find sufficient information, despite our efforts. Consequently, the resulting picture includes some gaps which cannot be covered by this study; however, they can be used to estimate the state-of-the-art of research on housing in Bucharest. Against this background, the study of housing in Bucharest included the following steps: 1 Systematic gathering of available information on housing in Bucharest, both from scientific literature and from the architecture and urban planning journals we had access to. Once collected, we systematized the information in a unitary database specifically built for this study, and, whenever possible, we carefully ensured information traceability, by accurate quoting of sources; 2 The information acquired was turned into data allowing geographical localization or in attributes related to such data. We always tried to process the information so as to enable its publication on the website dedicated to the support study;9 3 Systematization of housing indicators by topic and degree of granularity. The results of this exercise essentially determined the type of longitudinal and transversal analyses we were able to conduct. Moreover, they determined the places where we had to anchor the comparative analyses; 4 Indicator processing and tracking and building the comparative analyses; 5 Presentation of information in graphic or table format, to compress the text and increase the density of information. 8 Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics/NUTS. The current classification has been in force since 01.01.2018 and it includes the following levels: NUTS 1 includes major socioeconomic regions, NUTS 2 includes basic regions for the implementation of regional policies, and NUTS 3 includes low-scale regions used for specific diagnosis. More information available at: https://bit.ly/2LnvX2A (December 2020). In the case of Romania, the three levels are: macroregions, development regions and counties. 9 Available at: https://bit.ly/2kLpF3V (December 2020). 6 2.2 Approach on public spaces in Bucharest In the case of public spaces, the first component of the analysis identifies and files the public spaces in Bucharest City.10 Space filing focused on four main levels:11 • Access; • Accessibility; • Use and • Main features. In order to create a truly positive impact, the interventions in such spaces should not be limited to punctual solutions. The solutions for such spaces should consider a wide range of levels. Therefore, the sheet template starts from the scheme which defines the successful space (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Defining elements of the successful public space Source: https://bit.ly/2Uw9HK3 [30.03.2020]. 10 See Public spaces inventory sheet, available at Annex 2. 11 See ibidem. 7 The actual identification of spaces and of their components was performed using Google Maps. This was followed by field visits to validate the information. The types of spaces identified were included under four major categories: 1. Point-like spaces are small-sized public spaces, less than 3 hectares, mainly of local importance. Here we included squares, markets, playgrounds etc. These spaces take over the role of proximity facilities, therefore their presence in housing areas is crucial; 2. Abandoned spaces are derelict public places where no recent interventions on the urban furniture, lighting system, pavement, green areas etc. could be identified. Generally, they do not exceed 5 hectares; 3. Linear spaces are public access spaces which usually represent connective elements in the wider system of public spaces. Here we include boulevards, representative pedestrian areas or street segments with specific urban space elements (urban furniture, buffers, planted areas etc.); 4. Surface spaces are large public spaces. They are attraction points of a city, being used mostly for leisure activities by inhabitants or by tourists. Generally, such spaces exceed 3 hectares. This includes public gardens (3-15 ha), parks (over 15 ha) etc. Once included in one of the four categories, the qualitative analysis of the spaces focused on the identification of certain key aspects necessary to acquire quality urban space: • Access of persons with disabilities to the space under analysis; • Bicycle lanes in the space under analysis and in the adjacent areas; • Bicycle parking facilities in the spaces under analysis; • Existence and quality of seats (in the shadow, not in the shadow); • Drinking fountains and public toilets; • Playgrounds; • Sports facilities; • Space representativeness degree (at local level or at city level). Starting from the spaces identified, we conducted a general analysis of Bucharest City. The analysis presents general data on surfaces for each type of space and their distribution by city sectors. 8 Further, we developed a detailed qualitative analysis for each sector, building on the features mentioned above. The analysis by city sectors is presented in graphic format, so be easy to understand and compare. For the residential ensembles, the qualitative analysis by sectors means a first step in systematizing the information from neighborhoods, which might be the foundation of future urban policies. For the carriageway component, the study describes and documents the main reasons why the improvement of the carriageway is currently mission impossible. Further, the study proposes a theoretical framework for understanding the street issues against the background of the urban transformations occurred during the past 30 years and defines short-, medium- and long-term planning instruments. 2.3 The approach on the real estate market in Bucharest The methodology for the analysis of the real estate market in Bucharest is adapted to the nature and the evolution of this market. The real estate market, as a stand-alone instrument, developed after 1990 and is closely linked to the recent history of our country, as the evolution of the Romanian real estate market is clearly determined by the shift to a market economy. If before 1990 the urban structure and planning rules were dictated from central level, fully ignoring the land and real estate markets, during the transition and adaptation period, in 1990-2000, nothing remarkable was reported in the real estate market, which had a slow and relatively stable evolution. The beginnings of foreign developments and investments brought Romania, and Bucharest, implicitly, in the European and global real estate flows. Thus, the real estate market is still strongly impacted by the dual approach of the public authorities: the over-regulation prior 1990, with its current repercussions on the land and real estate markets, and the lack of effective regulation after 1990, with its current repercussions of a less controlled development. If we consider a city the product of public and private interventions, Bucharest suffered, during two different periods, due to the excessive interventions of one sector to the detriment of the other. All these actions and interventions were implemented and now build the overall picture of Bucharest City. Thus, in the analysis of the real estate market, especially in the analysis of the residential property market (collective housing) we took into account the construction period of the buildings, which is a key factor in the price composition. The long construction periods considered coincide with the long construction periods of the housing ensembles and/or with the turning points in the improvement of the national legislation on construction standards. Here, we focused explicitly on the earthquake resistance of the buildings, with the most important legal amendments adopted in 1941 and 1977, following the strongest earthquakes recorded until then. Thus, we focused on the following age groups: prior to 1941, 1941-1977, 1977-2000 and post-2000. Further, we breakdown the analysis by types of apartments for sale, starting from studios, 2-room apartments, 3-room apartments or 4 and more rooms, each category accounting for various shares in the structure of the residential inventory and being determinant for various groups of buyers, in different stages of their lives. 9 Figure 4. Evolution of built areas and densification of Bucharest Source: The authors. When developing this chapter, for the analysis of the residential market (collective housing), we consulted and took stock of the main official documentation sources available on the evolution of the real estate market in Bucharest, and the data were taken from the main dedicated webpages: www.imobiliare.ro and www.analizeimobiliare.ro, which, in turn, use the combined databases of various webpages or of specialist portals and real estate advertisements portals. In the data collection, the statistical analysis started from a minimum number of 10 real estate advertisements published for the respective area for the reference period (2008 - semester 1 2019). When there were no data inserted for a certain area during a certain period of time analyzed, we concluded that either there were less than 10 real estate advertisements published during that period in that database, or that they did not exist physically in the analyzed period, and they were built afterwards. Such telling examples are neighborhoods like Aviației, 13 Septembrie, Herăstrău Nordului, which were built after 1980; there are no buildings for sale erected in previous periods in those areas. The prices are in EUR (€), and they are the prices asked for selling, not the actual transaction prices. The differences between the transaction prices and the selling prices are not analyzed in this study, as 10 the information on the transaction prices was not available. However, the practice showed that, although the variation between the requested price and the final price can range from 1% to 15% of the transaction price, these are special cases, influenced by various subjective or qualitative factors etc. Therefore, the average selling prices collected and calculated provide, comparatively, a rather accurate overall picture which defines the dynamics of the market. In the analysis of office buildings, commercial buildings and logistics facilities we studied official materials provided by developers, by investors and by real estate consultancies. Despite our efforts to check the accuracy and comprehensiveness materials and information sources, there might be small differences in the values analyzed, though they do not significantly influence the conclusions of the analysis. Given the administrative division of Bucharest, the real estate indicators are analyzed against three levels: • The general (macro) level, where the indicators are retrieved for Bucharest and are analyzed against other cities which are similar/relevant for the analysis; • The interim level (mezzo), where the indicators are analyzed by real estate sub-markets and by city sectors; • The detail (micro) level, where the indicators are analyzed by real estate advertisement areas. The distribution of the real estate statistics areas overlaps the distribution of Bucharest neighborhoods or real estate areas, as they were used, identified and delimited by the specialist webpages hosting real estate advertisements. The correlations between neighborhoods, real estate advertisement areas, sectors and real estate sub- markets are presented in Table 1 and in Figure 5.12 Table 1. Correlations between neighborhoods, real estate advertisement areas, sectors and real estate sub- markets Name Real estate advertisement area Sector Sub-market 1 Mai 1 Mai Sector 1 North Domenii 1 Mai Sector 1 North Aviației Aviației Sector 1 North Henri Coandă Aviației Sector 1 North Băneasa Băneasa Sector 1 North Băneasa Forest Băneasa Sector 1 North Vatra Nouă Băneasa Sector 1 North Berceni Berceni Sector 4 South Bucureștii Noi Bucureștii Noi Sector 1 North Chitila Bucureștii Noi Sector 1 North Dămăroaia Bucureștii Noi Sector 1 North Pajura Bucureștii Noi Sector 1 North Străulești Bucureștii Noi Sector 1 North Andronache Colentina Sector 2 East Colentina Colentina Sector 2 East Fundeni Colentina Sector 2 East Ion Creangă Colentina Sector 2 East Cotroceni Cotroceni/13 Septembrie-Panduri Sector 5 Centre Crângași Crângași Sector 6 West Grozăvești Crângași Sector 6 West Eminescu Dacia-Eminescu Sector 2 Centre Baba Novac Decebal-Calea Călărașilor Sector 3 East Călărașilor Decebal-Calea Călărașilor Sector 2 Centre 12 The neighbourhood boundaries were taken from the ESRI database available online. For the purposes of this study, they were further aggregated in real estate advertisement areas. 11 Name Real estate advertisement area Sector Sub-market Floreasca Dorobanți-Floreasca Sector 1 North Primăverii Dorobanți-Floreasca Sector 1 North Dudești Dristor-Vitan Vechi Sector 3 East Popești Leordeni Dristor-Vitan Vechi Sector 3 South Brâncuși Drumul Taberei Sector 6 West Drumul Taberei Drumul Taberei Sector 6 West Tudor Vladimirescu Drumul Taberei Sector 6 West Pache Protopopescu Ferdinand Sector 2 Centre Ghencea Ghencea Sector 5 South Giulești Giulești Sector 1 North Giulești Sârbi Giulești Sector 1 North Progresul Giurgiului Sector 4 South Buzești Griviței-Gara de Nord Sector 1 Centre Gara de Nord Griviței-Gara de Nord Sector 1 Centre Grivița Griviței-Gara de Nord Sector 1 North Plevnei Griviței-Gara de Nord Sector 1 Centre Herăstrău Herăstrău-Nordului Sector 1 North 23 August Iancului-Mihai Bravu Sector 2 East Kiseleff Kiseleff-Aviatorilor Sector 1 North Militari Militari Sector 6 West Moșilor Moșilor Sector 2 Centre Obor Moșilor Sector 2 East Baicului Pantelimon Sector 2 East Dobroești Pantelimon Sector 2 East Electronicii Pantelimon Sector 2 East Ostrov Pantelimon Sector 2 East Pantelimon Pantelimon Sector 2 East Mărășești Carol Park (Cantemir-Mărășești) Sector 3 Centre Pipera Pipera Sector 2 North Ferentari Rahova Sector 5 South Rahova Rahova Sector 5 South Sălaj Rahova Sector 5 South Stefan cel Mare Stefan cel Mare Sector 2 Centre Tei Tei Sector 2 East Tei Boboc Tei Sector 2 East Tineretului Tineretului-Timpuri Noi Sector 4 South Văcărești Tineretului-Timpuri Noi Sector 4 South Industriilor Titan Sector 3 East Titan Titan Sector 3 East Unirii Unirii Sector 3 Centre Cișmigiu Victoriei-Romană-Universitate Sector 1 Centre Romană Square Victoriei-Romană-Universitate Sector 1 Centre Victoriei Square Victoriei-Romană-Universitate Sector 1 Centre Universitate Victoriei-Romană-Universitate Sector 1 Centre Alba Iulia Vitan Nou Sector 3 Centre Vitanul Nou Vitan Nou Sector 3 Centre Source: The authors. 12 Figure 5. Correlations between neighborhoods, real estate advertisement areas, sectors and real estate sub- markets Source: The authors. 13 3 ADMINISTRATIVE AND FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE OF BUCHAREST The goal of this section is to illustrate how the location and the development of the main areas of activities influence the smooth operation of Bucharest City. Consequently, we focused on the following topics: • The location of the main places of daily interest in relation to residential areas; • The connection between types of traffic and the most important areas of activities; • The type of city expansion in the past years. Throughout this section, we looked at territorial relations from the viewpoint of the administrative system. 3.1 Administrative structure Figure 6. Main areas for logistics (left), commerce (center) and jobs (right) Source: The authors. Together, Ilfov County and Bucharest City make up the Bucharest-Ilfov Development Region, one of the most developed (NUTS2) regions in the European Union (EU 28), in terms of GDP/capita.13, 14 Although they are independent administrative-territorial units15, there are very strong interdependencies between Bucharest and Ilfov County. Through the peri-urban communes of the Capital, Ilfov County has become the main residential,16 logistics, storage and manufacturing area.17 Thus, given the lack of land stock in the Capital, most urban space consuming functions which depend on large infrastructure, such as industrial, storage, logistics activities, and the large commercial centers or residential neighborhoods turned to the peri-urban settlements in Ilfov County. Conversely, most jobs and some of the facilities of daily interest are still provided by the Capital. Consequently, the strong connections between Bucharest and Ilfov County are the reason why most access roads to the Capital are traffic-jammed at peak hours.18 In the past years there have been 13 In terms of GDP/inhabitant and purchase power, in 2018 Bucharest-Ilfov Region ranked 21 in the European Union (EU 28), outranking regions like Budapest, Vienna, Helsinki or Berlin. 14 Bucharest – Ilfov Region is among the capital city regions which are enclaves within other regions. Similar cases: Budapest, Warsaw, Vienna, Prague, Brussels or Berlin. Budapest and Warsaw changed the boundaries of the region (NUTS2), basically separating the capital from the adjacent region, so that the hinterland can benefit from more ERDF resources (GDP below 75% of the EU average). 15 Between 1981 and 1997, Ilfov County was named Ilfov Agricultural District and was subordinated to Bucharest. 16 In 2012-2018, according to the National Institute of Statistics, the population residing in Ilfov County increased by over 19.9% while the population residing in Bucharest decreased by 2.7%. Communes like Dobroești, Tunari, Berceni, Stefăneștii de Jos, Corbeanca, Chiajna or towns such as Pantelimon, Popești Leordeni or Bragadiru recorde d population increases by more than 40% in 2007-2019 (see INS Tempo). 17 Partly offices as well, in the towns of Otopeni and Voluntari. 18 In 2011, more than 90,000 persons lived in Ilfov County and had a job registered in the Capital. 14 numerous studies with proposals for a metropolitan area of the Capital.19 Eventually, the decision was to select the simplest administrative option, namely to limit the metropolitan area to the Ilfov County. Consequently Bucharest-Ilfov County coordination is ensured by three organizations: • Regional Development Agency Bucharest–Ilfov (ADR BI), mainly focused on European Funds management; • Bucharest-Ilfov Inter-Community Development Association for Public Transport (ADI ZMB), explicitly dedicated to public transport; • Inter-Community Development Agency for the Bucharest Metropolitan Area (ADI ZMB). Figure 7. Bucharest by Sectors Source: The authors. The City of Bucharest is currently divided into 6 sectors, and it is managed by the Municipality of Bucharest (PMB) and by the 6 sector municipalities. The historical center of the city has a special status because, although it is located within Sector 3, it is managed by the “Historical Centre Coordination Board”20 pursuant to the Government Ordinance 77/2001. Although in the 18th century Bucharest chose an administrative division with the center separated from the sectors, starting from 1950 onwards the central area was divided radially, initially by sections and then by sectors (1968 – 8 sectors/1979 – 6 sectors). This radial segmentation makes the efficient management of the central area difficult, as there concentrate the highest density of buildings of national importance, such as governmental institutions, monuments, universities etc., and complex issues, which need urgent intervention. 19 PATZ the urban agglomeration area and the metropolitan area of the Municipality of Bucharest (2005), V. Gherasim, Sociological research on the social condition of the city of Bucharest and ZMB development (2014) or CSB 2035 (2011). 20 The Board coordinates the historical centre rehabilitation and revitalisation process and it consists of: The Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of Public Administration (currently the Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration), Transport and Housing (currently the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure and Communication), the Ministry of Public Finance, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Culture and Religious Denominations (currently the Ministry of Culture), the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the General Board of the Municipality of Bucharest. 15 Against this background, the launch of a comprehensive urban regeneration process for the central area, exceeding the historical center defined by GEO 77/2001 is much more difficult to manage with a territory divided between 7 administrative territorial units (PMB and the 6 sector municipalities). We note a similar situation for Dâmbovița, one of the two green-blue corridors crossing the Capital. Dâmbovița crosses 5 of the 6 sectors of the Capital, and the planning arrangements are different from one sector to another. Although the administrative reorganization of the Capital and of Ilfov County is a very burdensome process, this should be considered as a long-term endeavor and should be thoroughly prepared. Functional relations are increasingly intense in this territory, and it is more and more difficult for the current system to support them. 3.2 Functional structure According to the functional zoning in the Zonal Urban Plans (PUZs) Coordinating the Sector, we have the following shares: • More than 27% of the built-up territory of Bucharest is currently regulated as a housing area; • Other 15% is regulated as a mixed area, more specifically housing and other functions; • Only 14% of the built-up area represents carriageways, which highlights possible connectivity issues, as the share of traffic in developed cities tends to exceed 20%; • The same stand for the green areas, where the 13% share cannot ensure the minimum of 26 m2 per capita. Moreover, having regard to the regulations included in the sector PUZs, the share of mixed areas will increase by more than 6%, and the share of carriageways will also increase by 3%. Thus, with the ongoing process of functional conversion of the manufacturing areas and with the reduction in the share of individual dwelling areas, the city will densify, especially at the periphery, with the increase in connectivity, as the new development areas become equipped with transport infrastructure. Thus, most areas at the periphery are regulated in the sector PUZs as mixed areas of type M2 or M3, meaning their height does not exceed P+4 - P+10-14 (ground floor + 4 upper stories to ground floor + 10-14 upper stories), which involves very high density of population or of workplaces, while the transport infrastructure in not sufficiently developed yet. However, on the other hand, the development of functions which generate jobs at the boundaries of the median ring along the main corridors served by high-capacity public transport could reduce some of the pressure generated by the periphery-center flows. 16 Figure 8. Main functional areas, according to the regulations included in the Zonal Urban Plans (PUZs) by sectors and to those included in the General Urban Plan (PUG), approved in 2001 Source: PUZ for Sectors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (under approval) and PUG 2001. Currently, except for the central area, collective dwellings account for approximately 14% of the Capital surface, while individual dwellings account for 18%. 21 The main areas of collective dwellings are in the inner side of the median ring, in the Western, Easter and South-Eastern areas of the Capital. The individual dwelling areas tend to be located on the periphery of the city or in the inner side of the median ring. In the meantime, due to the high accessibility and proximity to facilities and public institutions of municipal or national importance, the individual dwellings located in the inner part of the median ring took over the function of public services of food services. Due to the increasing concentration of places of interest in the central area and of the population in the outer part of the median ring, a significant share of the daily movement can be defined as periphery-center traffic. Only in the past seven years, we have seen the development of activity areas, outside the center area, thus redirecting some of the flows towards the North area (Aurel Vlaicu – Pipera or Expoziției). 21Estimates building on the functional zonings included in the district ZUPs and GUP 2000 and detailed by analysing satellite images. 17 Figure 9. Areas of collective dwellings (red), individual housing (green) and central area (purple) Source: Adapted after the zonings proposed by the Zonal Urban Plans (PUZs) for coordinating the sector, by the General Urban Plan (PUG) approved in 2001 and after satellite images. 18 Figure 10. Main concentrations of amenities of public importance correlated with population density Source: Updated Dynamic PUG database, mapping, Open Street Maps (OSM) database. Most amenities of public importance are still concentrated in the central area, although the dwellings are gradually replaced by office facilities, and the number of inhabitants is lower and lower. The quantity and diversity of the amenities of public importance greatly overlaps the population density. Thus, in neighborhoods with collective dwellings such as Titan, Obor/Ștefan cel Mare, Militari or Drumul Taberei we also find the highest concentrations of amenities of public importance. However, the recently developed areas on the periphery still lack amenities.22 This service issue occurs mostly because the new developments were built sporadically, without taking into account the amenities needs, and currently either the density is still not sufficient to enable efficient provision of such servicers, or there are no longer affordable pieces of land to include the necessary amenities. 22 The sectoral analyses on education, culture, leisure etc. include more detailed examination of amenities. 19 3.3 Urban development dynamics With no regulations and measures to enable adequate control of urban development, at least in the last decade the Capital has developed mostly uncontrolled. With coherent but obsolete General Urban Plan (PUG), the new developments were implemented mostly under Zonal Urban Plans (PUZ) aiming at changing the function of the land or at enabling an increase in the urban planning indicators. Against this background, the development of the Capital occurred simultaneously through two different processes, both by urban sprawl and by densification. 3.3.1 Urban sprawl In the period of 2002-2019, the built-up areas in Bucharest increased by 13%, reaching a total of approximately 17,361 ha, accounting for approximately 72% of the administrative surface of the city. The urban sprawl process is much stronger in Ilfov County, and in the peri-urban settlements of the Capital than at the periphery. In Bucharest, the urban sprawl process occurred first in areas with a valuable natural landscape, such as the chain of lakes in Colentina, or in areas with high accessibility, such as the Nordului Road, with mostly residential property, or along the National Road 1 (DN1), with mostly office and commercial buildings. Areas with precious land stocks have been developed gradually, but with very high density and without and adequate street network. A good example is the residential area along Nordului Road, where the web of individual dwellings was added collective dwellings with variable heights, from P+4 to P+12 (ground floor + 4-12 upper stories) and a land occupancy percentage (LOP) which often exceeds the 70% threshold. As the new housing ensembles were developed as punctual interventions, in an unplanned manner, the resulting street network is not functional. The streets are undersized, with 5- 6 m carriageway and footway not exceeding 1 m, are mainly organized as cul-de-sacs and do not provide direct connection between the two arteries delimiting the neighborhood. Only in the past 5-7 years the real estate developments in the Capital have focused on lower accessibility areas at the periphery, such as Prelungirea Ghencea or Anghel Saligny. However, developments here did not include amenities and an adequate street network either, therefore the connections with areas of interest are daily blocked in traffic jams. The issue is more visible for the Prelungirea Ghencea Street, which provides an important connection with areas of interest in the Capital, but currently does not even have footway areas in many segments. Because of the lack of planning, the expansion project now entails significant expropriation costs. 20 Figure 11. New developments in the North-Aurel Vlaicu area: on the left, in 2002, on the right, in 2019. Source: Adapted after satellite images. Because land availability and costs are higher in the Capital, the new residential developments focused on the Ilfov County. They relied on the proximity of Bucharest for amenities and for the transport infrastructure. Although amenities did develop with the population growth in the urban sprawl areas, they are mainly private.23 Thus, in denser areas there are already food shops or restaurants, even kindergartens or daycares, but they are private. As the public administration did not equip these areas with the necessary facilities, the need was covered by the private sector. However, the inhabitants of these new residential areas still use the cultural facilities, the parks, the leisure areas, the primary, secondary and tertiary education provided by the Capital. The metropolitan public transport covers only partly their areas. Unfortunately, either the bus frequency is low, or they cannot cover all dwellings, because the new streets are too narrow or are not paved. 23The number of entities active in education in Ilfov County increased by 257.45% between 2011 and 2017, according to the data made available by the National Institute of Statistics (INS). 21 Figure 12. Urban Sprawl at the Capital periphery Source: Adapted after satellite images. 22 Figure 13. Urban Sprawl of Bucharest and of its peri-urban area in 2002-2019 (2017) Source: Adapted after satellite images. 23 The widest urban sprawl areas in the inner side of the Bucharest ring road (DNCB) are in the East (Chiajna), South (Domnești and Popești-Leordeni) and North (Voluntari). The Western part of the Capital has seen a stronger urban sprawl process only in the past 5 years, as it relied on the availability of land and on the increased accessibility due to the extension of the M3 subway route in November 2008. Among the urban sprawl areas outside the Capital, only the one in Popești Leordeni and partly Pipera 24 developed counting on the proximity of the high-capacity transport infrastructure, while the others only relied on the proximity to the Capital. All urban sprawl areas developed on a non-classified street network, and they are served by streets with minimum profile, meaning 4th category streets, and, less often, 3rd category streets. Figure 14. Main expansion areas in Bucharest and its proximity Source: Google Maps Although the new developments at the periphery of the Capital are mainly built for residential use, the typology and the density of the built-up inventory are different. For example, some areas in Popești Leordeni and Chiajna developed mainly with collective dwellings or with line-up dwellings, while in Domnești they meet the requirement of individual dwellings isolated on their lot of land. Regardless the dwelling typology, in all cases we note maximum land occupancy, and even the more generous 24 Before the overpass on Pipera Blvd was built, the connection with the Capital was difficult because of the barriers activated with each train going to Constanța. 24 plots in Domnești usually have a land occupancy percentage (LOP) exceeding 30 -40%. Also, the new developments are either punctual, or groups of several dwellings placed in sets of maximum 10 apartment blocks, and are not planned as neighborhoods, with the necessary amenities. Only in the Northern part of the Capital and in Ilfov County we find residential developments with more generous spaces, some of them even planned with amenities, such as Cosmopolis in Ștefănești. The lack of amenities and jobs in the proximity of residential ensembles, together with poor public transport coverage turns the new urban sprawl areas into car-dependent communities. Thus, the daily travels either to work or to amenities available only in the Capital are made mostly by car. 3.3.2 Densification process The densification process is visible especially in areas with high accessibility where, additionally, the land lots were more or less generous and enabled more intensive construction. Thus, three different types of the densification process are visible at Bucharest level: • Densification by functional conversion; • Densification of already developed areas, by replacing the old building stock or by inserting buildings higher than the average in those areas; • Densification of collective dwelling areas by punctual insertions. Densification by functional conversion is characteristic to former industrial areas. Generous lots, well connected to the technical and municipal networks and to the high-capacity public transport, were turned into office areas or commercial centers. The best examples are the office building area from Pipera, Petrache Poenaru, Basarab or AFI-Cotroceni. This process developed poles with amenities and jobs very close to the residential centers. Thus, in the past 20 years, the polycentric structure of the Capital developed, and the new commercial centers located in the collective dwelling neighborhoods, such as ParkLake – Titan, AFI – Militari, Mega Mall – Pantelimon, Orhideea – Grozăvești etc., ensure balanced service provision, whether food- or commercial services. However, all these occurred at the detriment of the commercial units operating at the ground floor of those collective dwellings. Nevertheless, although the polycentric structure of the Capital has developed constantly, the largest number of jobs and commercial center are still in the Northern part of the city, in the Expoziției -Pipera- Băneasa area, while the Southern, especially the South-West part of the Capital is still underdeveloped from this perspective. Densification by punctual insertions is visible especially in those areas with a high-accessibility residential profile. Thus, in the past 20 years, counting either on the regulations included in the General Urban Plan (PUG)25 or in Zonal Urban Plans (PUZs), with the goal to change the functional area or to increase urban planning indicators by 20%, many residential areas were densified and office buildings were added, though the amenities and the transport infrastructure were not adapted. 25 Thus, the Local Urban Planning Regulation (LUPR) stipulates that buildings with a height profile P+2 or P+4 can be erected in individual housing areas, depending on the existing Reference Territorial Unit (RTU). Nevertheless, pursuant to L 350/2001, the Land Use Coefficient (LUC) can be increased by other 20% with the development of a Zonal Urban Plan (ZUP). 25 Figure 15. Densification Process in the Residential Neighborhoods and in the Central Area Source: The authors. The process of densification of a residential area of individual houses either isolated in their lot or coupled with low-height collective dwellings (P+2-P+4) is visible especially in neighborhoods like Grivița, Bucureștii Noi or Pajura. Here, in the past 20 years, low -height collective dwellings were inserted on lots of land without constructions or with derelict buildings, with a Land Occupancy Percentage (LOP) which often exceeds the 60-70% threshold. The densification of this residential area had a negative impact on the quality of living, as the vegetation reduced, there were issues caused by exposure to sunlight, the street network was congested during peak hours, and the sidewalks were blocked by vehicles parked illegally. Other neighborhoods, such as Cotroceni, Dorobanți or Floreasca, are facing the same issues, but here the proximity to the city center contributed to the increase in the 26 number of office buildings, either by insertion of new buildings or by conversion of existing dwellings. But the most difficult congestion and parking issues occur in the historical center, especially in the North-East part, where various office buildings were inserted over the years, therefore most secondary streets are congested, and the pedestrian and road traffic became difficult because of illegally parked vehicles. The densification process is less visible in the collective dwelling areas, but the impact is significant. Figure 16. The process of turning green areas and sidewalks into residential parking lots in Aviației neighborhood Source: Consultant analysis using the cadastral squares of 1987, own image archive. Green areas / sidewalks turned into residential parking lots Due to the fact that many collective dwelling neighborhoods were planned and built during the socialist period, there are not many land stocks left for the insertion of other constructions. Because the demand remains constant, the amenities (schools, kindergartens, shops etc.) were mostly maintained.26 New building insertions are rather an isolated phenomenon, which is visible especially in the land lots unaffected by the systematization process from the socialist period; these lots were either left without constructions or had low-height buildings. However, the new insertions contribute to a decrease in the quality of living, because they have a negative impact on the sun exposure of neighboring buildings and place huge pressure on the local amenities and traffic, which were initially designed for a different 26 See Error! Reference source not found.. 27 number of users. There are also cases where the new insertions in collective dwelling neighborhoods compromise former green areas, for example ParkLake Mall, which was built on land planned for Titan Park, or various community areas in the collective dwellings, such as Caranfil Residence, which was built in a collective dwellings space. The increase in the number of vehicles in the Capital entails an ever-increasing demand for parking, especially residential parking lots. Thus, in the past 20 years, green areas and sidewalk segments in the collective dwelling neighborhoods were gradually reduced to make room for residential parking lots. 3.3.3 Land reserves As the need for new housing, for industrial areas, and for storage and logistics areas was mostly covered by Ilfov County, the Capital still has important land reserves that can be developed. Thus, there are approximately 1,523 hectares of abandoned or derelict industrial areas,27 which could be subject to a functional conversion process, together with approximately 2,984 hectares of undeveloped land.28 Consequently, Bucharest still has land reserves accounting for approximately 18.7% of its total administrative surface, which could be developed to cover some of the necessary amenities, office buildings or housing. The largest land reserves which could be developed are at the Southern periphery. It is here that the lack of green areas is also most visible, especially in Sector 5, as well as the lack of amenities and the lack of jobs. Therefore, it is important that green spaces and the introduction of functions other than housing should be prioritized when planning the use of such land reserves. Also, at the boundaries of the central ring there are still industrial areas in decline, the land of which has not entered the functional conversion process yet. In the South-West part of Bucharest, between Mihail Sebastian Street, Calea Ferentari and Progresului Street, we note over 75 ha of land occupied by industrial areas. In the past decade, the area underwent a conversion process, and it already hosts various commercial centers (Liberty Mall or Vulcan Value Center) and office buildings. Within the central ring there are two larger pieces of land, one the former “Casa Radio”, near the North Station, and the other, called “Esplanada”, located near Unirii Square, but the legal issues have limited, at least until now, the development of these two locations. Given the localization of the urban planning documentations like the Zonal Urban Plans (PUZs) and the Detailed Urban Plans (PUD), either approved or under debate by the Municipality of Bucharest, we note increased interest for the North area, following the future subway route M6, for the West area near the subway station Anghel Saligny, for Obor area and for the Southern area as well.29 27 Brownfield. 28 Greenfield. 29 There is development interest for the Western part of the Capital as well, but District 6 has a Coordinating Zonal Urban Plan which already regulates that area, and there is little need for other urban planning documentation 28 Figure 17. Main land reserves of Bucharest Source: Mapping after satellite images. The eastward urban sprawl trend is also validated by the ongoing residential projects. More than 9,000 new apartments in housing ensembles are already in the design, construction or even selling phase in this part of Bucharest. Although there are more new housing ensembles in the Western part of the Capital, the quantity of apartments which should enter the real estate market in Militari and Drumul Taberei neighborhoods is almost double compared to the East, exceeding the threshold of 16,800 29 units. In the Southern part of Bucharest, the interest still focuses on housing ensembles, located mostly near the subway stations of Apărătorii Patriei and Dimitrie Leonida.30 The largest office buildings pole in the country, located in the Pipera Tunari area, continues to develop with office buildings; nevertheless, housing ensembles reaching a total of 5,500 apartments are under construction. The central area and the Expoziției area remain attractive for new office building projects, but there are some projects planned for areas outside the central North-South axis, more specifically in Grozăvești, Basarab or Trafic Greu, where land reserves are still available. In the Northern part of Bucharest we note again a concentration of the new office building developments along the subway route leading to the International Airport Henri Coandă. Further development of the Northern part of Bucharest with office buildings involves a more intense traffic periphery-center/North and especially those in the South-North axis, and it places pressure on an already overstretched transport system. Thus, although the urban sprawl trend continues for Bucharest, there are no planned projects for the periphery areas with the largest land reserves: Berceni, Trapezului, Ghencea, or Giulești Sârbi. 30 Approximately 5,000 apartments. 30 4 HOUSING IN BUCHAREST: RESULTS In order to assess the performance of the analysis on housing in Bucharest, here are the objectives we pursued systematically: 1 An overall comparative statistical perspective on housing in Bucharest. When building this perspective, we used several moments in time, to turn it into a longitudinal analysis. We used relevant statistical information for period between 2001 and 2018, covering two censuses, and the moment when the financial crisis became acute in Romania, and the current situation; 2 A unitary database which includes the following data sets: • Buildings in Bucharest, including their height profile; • The street network in Bucharest; • Delimitation of housing ensembles on which there are references in the Romanian specialist literature. For each ensemble we tried to systematize all available information and classify it around the following topics: • Delimitation of initial shapes of the projects and indication of their key phases; • Isolation and indication of mismatches between the project proposal and the current reality; • Classification of housing ensembles by construction period; • Classification of housing ensembles by their structural system, where possible; 3 A set of typology maps of the built-up residential stock in Bucharest, retrieved from the database described above. 4.1 Statistical analysis Statistical analysis provided an overall picture of the current state and of the housing stock evolution in time. Statistical analysis explicitly focuses on the following topics: • Evolution of the number of dwellings completed; • Types of existing dwellings; • Size of dwellings; • Amenities; • Inhabitants; • Housing overcrowding rate; • Built-up residential stock condition; • And finally, dwelling issues. The information in the statistical section are always presented in a comparative manner. Thus, in order to place Bucharest against the national background, we systematically used comparisons with Iași, Cluj and Timișoara, the highest-ranking first class cities by number of inhabitants. 31 4.1.1 Brief statistical profile of housing in Bucharest The statistical perspective systematizes the available data into a set of relevant statistical indicators, capable to provide a comprehensive picture (insofar as possible) on the housing evolution, and on its impact on the quality of life. We tracked the indicators in the set both in a longitudinal and in a comparative perspective. The data series cover the period between 2001 and 2018, thus illustrating the evolution of the indicators selected during the financial crisis, which impacted the Romanian economy in 2008-2010. The comparative perspective includes two different directions: the first compares Bucharest with the three highest-ranking first class cities by number of inhabitants, namely Iași, Timișoara, and Cluj, and the second one compares Bucharest with the national and European trends. For Bucharest, we used two different levels of detail. Thus, a part of the indicator sets applied covers the entire city, while others are detailed at sector level. The data series which describe the six sectors are based on the data collected during the Population and Housing Census in 2011 (PHC 2011), but they lack the longitudinal dimension and capture but a punctual image for 2011. Additionally, in Annex 2: Statistical sheets - housing in Bucharest. - there are two types of templates which include: 1. Relevant data on the main type of dwellings which are characteristic to Bucharest, more specifically individual dwellings, isolated on their plot, and apartment blocks. The indicators are based on the data collected during the Population and Housing Census in 2011 (PHC 2011). We used such data to draft a comparative perspective on the six sectors, touching on the following aspects: • Distribution of housing stock, by sector, by building age; • Average useful floor area of a dwelling, by sector, by building age; • Average number of households in a dwelling, by sector, by building age. A characterization of each sector, in terms of available housing stock and occupancy level. The indicators are based on the data collected during the Population and Housing Census in 2011 and touch the following aspects: • Distribution of housing stock, by building age and type; • Analysis of the main types of dwellings, more specifically of the individual buildings, isolated on their plot, and of the apartment blocks, looking at the ratio between the average number of rooms available and the average number of users in each dwelling. As a whole, the statistical perspective can be captured succinctly in the following comments: 1. Typologically, the housing stock consists predominantly in two major types: individual buildings, isolated on their plot, and of the apartment blocks. From a comparative perspective, apartment blocks hold the most significant share in the housing stock in Bucharest; 2. The housing stock age is directly correlated to the housing policies, especially those applied in the second half of the 20th century. Thus, the main the category consists in apartment blocks built between 1945 and 1989, with a peak development after the 1977 earthquake, more specifically in 1978–1989. 3. Given the share of housing stock developed during the socialist period in the total number of dwellings available, the average floor area per person is significantly lower than in other European capitals, as well as the average values in Cluj and Timișoara; 4. The lack of public investment in the housing stock development is an issue. The housing stock part of public property significantly decreased immediately after the change of the political regime in the winter of 1989, and new housing built annually from public funds are quasi-absent. 32 Therefore, the task of new housing development was taken over by the private sector, which mainly focuses on Ilfov County. 5. The correlation of available data does not indicate any overcrowding rate in Bucharest. However, this conclusion should not be taken at face value, because this estimate could not be performed against all criteria defined by the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat);31 6. There are mismatches between the forecasts and estimates performed by the National Institute of Statistics and the actual reality in the field. Although visible in data series provided by the Population and Housing Census in 2011 (PHC 2011), the National Institute of Statistics did not provide any official explanation for such mismatches. 4.1.1.1. Bucharest in International Context Before proceeding with the description of the statistical profile of housing in Bucharest, we conducted a preliminary comparative analysis between Bucharest and other European capitals, focused on the following two main topics: existing housing stock and housing rental or selling price. The reference period for this analysis is 2005-2018, and it focuses explicitly on capital cities from the former socialist block, the evolution of which was similar to the evolution of Bucharest in the ‘90s. Consequently, in the analysis of the housing stock we compared with Budapest, Prague and Warsaw, in the analysis of selling or rental prices we added Bratislava, Sofia and Belgrade to the comparison. 4.1.1.2. Existing Housing Stock The data available capture the real estate market dynamics against the following four indicators: • Number of available housing (see Figure 18); • Number of new housing (see Figure 19); • Number of Building Permits issued (see Figure 20); • Average living space, per person (see Figure 21). Against this background, Bucharest values are below the average values registered for the other European capitals, both in terms of available housing and average floor area. At the same time, the dynamics of the residential market in Bucharest tends to be lower than in the other capitals in the region. 31 The Eurostat criteria to define overcrowding are available at: https://bit.ly/2VTGN5N (December 2020). 33 Figure 18: Number of available housing, in 1,000 persons 600 549 498 500 524 444 400 410 364 300 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 București Budapesta Varșovia Source: Adaptation of statistical indicators 410600 (Statistics Poland), RD1A01 (KSH – Hungarian Central Statistical Office), LOC101B and POP107D (INS Tempo) [12.03.2020]. Figure 19: Number of dwellings completed annually, in 1,000 persons 8.00 7.77 7.20 6.00 5.56 4.04 4.00 2.69 2.00 1.01 2.20 0.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 București Budapesta Praga Source: Adaptation of statistical indicators 15-2. Housing construction in the Capital City of Prague (Czech Statistical Office), RB1A02 (KSH – Hungarian Central Statistical Office), LOC104B and POP107D (INS Tempo) [12.03.2020]. 34 Figure 20: Building Permits (BP) issued, in 1,000 inhabitants 4.00 3.83 3.00 2.00 1.23 1.00 0.98 0.44 0.35 0.00 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 București Varșovia Praga Source: Adaptation of statistical indicators P3817 (Statistics Poland), 15-3. Building permits granted and approximate value of constructions in the Capital City of Prague, by administrative district in 2018 (Czech Statistical Office), LOC101B and POP107D (INS Tempo) [12.03.2020]. Figure 21: Average living space, per person 35 32.40 30 25.00 25 19.32 20 14.07 15 10 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 București Varșovia Source: Adaptation of statistical indicators 60573 (Statistics Poland), LOC103B and POP107D (INS Tempo) [12.03.2020]. 35 4.1.1.3. Selling and rental prices for dwellings Bucharest ranges are below the average values of the capitals in the former socialist block, both for rental and for selling of property. From this perspective, the dynamics of the real estate market tends to be similar to the trends noted in Sofia and Belgrade. We can note a clear difference between Eastern European and Central European capitals, accounting for approximately 35-40% in the rental prices (see Figure 22), reaching even 100% in the case of rental and selling prices for dwellings ( see Figure 23). Figure 22: Rental prices for dwellings 1,400 € 1,288 € 1,200 € 1,048 € 1,072 € 1,000 € 905 € 902 € 790 € 778 € 800 € 798 € 674 € 670 € 652 € 634 € 636 € 612 € 600 € 488 € 445 € 586 € 480 € 392 € 400 € 405 € 487 € 462 € 372 € 340 € 356 € 200 € 271 € 287 € 216 € 0€ Bucuresti Bratislava Praga Varșovia Budapesta Sofia Belgrad Apartament cu un dormitor (situat central) Apartament cu un dormitor Apartament cu trei dormitoare (situat central) Apartament cu trei dormitoare Source: Adapted after Numbeo. Cost of Living [28.01.2020]. 36 Figure 23: Cost of building 6,000 € 4,980 € 5,000 € 4,000 € 3,159 € 3,239 € 2,942 € 3,000 € 3,521 € 2,488 € 1,790 € 2,000 € 1,560 € 2,325 € 2,113 € 1,887 € 1,000 € 1,346 € 1,095 € 1,040 € 0€ Bucuresti Bratislava Praga Varșovia Budapesta Sofia Belgrad Prețul / mp (în zona centrală) Prețul / mp (în afara zonei centrale) Source: Adapted after Numbeo. Cost of Living [28.01.2020]. 4.1.1.4. Housing stock in Bucharest, by construction period The most important category includes the housing built during the socialist period, especially after the 1977 earthquake, more specifically between 1978 and 1989. The only exception from this trend is Sector 1, with a residential stock where both the share of dwellings built before 1945 and the share of dwellings built between 1945 and 1970 are higher. Figure 24. Distribution of housing stock (%), by construction period, by sector, in 2011 Sector 6 4,376 39,986 44,993 51,669 Sector 5 12,263 26,125 11,707 35,509 Sector 4 5,305 31,017 31,074 40,797 Sector 3 6,699 52,961 32,268 51,650 Sector 2 14,043 26,983 31,315 52,647 Sector 1 18,009 26,474 6,115 18,785 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 perioadă necunoscută Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 37 4.1.1.5. Evolution of the existing number of dwellings Between 2010 and 2011, we note a significant increase in the evolution of the existing number of dwellings, which is not accounted for. The explanations might be as follows: 1. A lack of correlation between the situation in the field and the forecasts published by the National Institute of Statistics, which was corrected in 2011, following the Population and Housing Census. 2. Deficiencies in the acceptance and annual reporting processes for buildings completed in 2002- 2010, overlapping almost fully with the peak period of the constructions market. Since there is no official explanation from the National Institute of Statistics, we find both explanations equally likely. However, this situation seems similar to the one reported in 2012 by Vasile Ghețău, against the background of the preliminary results of the Population Census.32 At the same time, given these features, it is very likely that the housing stock growth pace captured by further data of the 2011 Census did not reflect the actual field situation. It is expected that the next census will indicate again a sudden correction of the values. Figure 25. Available housing stock in 2001-2018, by type of property 880,000 860,000 840,000 820,000 800,000 780,000 859,568 853,978 850,720 847,079 842,993 839,913 837,319 835,730 760,000 740,000 778,117 775,238 772,213 768,603 765,430 762,368 760,134 757,225 754,523 752,119 720,000 700,000 680,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Proprietate privata Proprietate publică Source: Adaptation of indicator LOC101B,33 from the INS Tempo database [16.09.2019]. 32 See Ghețău, 2012. 33 “Existing dwellings at the end of the year, by type of property, by county and by locality” (LOC101B). The indicator metadata are available on its webpage. Unfortunately, currently the webpage associated with the Tempo Database does not enable the links function. 38 Figure 26. Share of privately owned housing stock. Annual evolution for 2001-2018 100% 99.14% 99% 98.96% 98% 97.83% 97% 96.54% 96% 95% 94% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Municipiul București Iași Timișoara Cluj-Napoca Source: Adaptation of indicator LOC101B,34 from the INS Tempo database [16.09.2019]. Figure 27: Dynamics of public and private dwelling stock. Evolution (percentages), compared to 2008 25% 20% 15% 10% 9.69% 5% 6.85% 0% 0.63% -1.43% -5% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Municipiul București Iași Timișoara Cluj-Napoca Source: Adaptation of indicator LOC101B,35 from the INS Tempo database [16.09.2019]. 34 See Previous footnote. 35 See Previous footnote. 39 Figure 28. Available dwelling stock, public and private property. Annual evolution, in 1,000 persons 500 450 400 410 391 350 368 362 300 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Municipiul București Iași Timișoara Cluj-Napoca Source: Adaptation of indicators LOC101B and POP107D,36 from the INS Tempo database [16.09.2019]. 4.1.1.6. Evolution of the number of dwellings completed Looking at the evolution of the number of dwellings completed, we easily note the utter disappearance of the public investments, with the task of catering for the market needs completely taken over by the private sector. Additionally, we note an obvious sub-urbanization trend, manifest especially around Bucharest. In absolute numbers, the differences between the number of dwellings completed annually in Ilfov County and in Bucharest City have been reduced in the past years. However, in terms of population, they only confirm that Ilfov County still serves as absorption pool for investments which actually serve the population of Bucharest. 36“Existing dwellings at the end of the year, by type of property, by county and by locality” (LOC101B) and “Population by residence, on the 1st of January, by age groups, by age, by gender, by county and by locality” (POP107D). The indicators metadata are available on their webpages. Unfortunately, currently the webpage associated with the Tempo Database does not enable the links function. 40 Figure 29: Dwellings completed at the end of the year, by their source of financing 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 5,689 4,448 3,838 2,000 3,637 3,324 2,913 2,772 2,673 2,655 2,045 1,814 1,746 1,000 1,637 1,288 1,255 1,170 1,110 1,086 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Fonduri private Fonduri publice Source: Adaptation of indicator LOC104B,37 from the INS Tempo database [16.09.2019]. Figure 30: Dwellings completed at the end of the year, private funds 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Municipiul București Județul Ilfov Source: Adaptation of indicator LOC104B38, from the INS Tempo database [16.09.2019]. 37“Dwellings completed during the year, by sources of financing, by county and by locality” (LOC104B). The indicator metadata are available on its webpage. Unfortunately, currently the webpage associated with the Tempo Database does not enable the links function. 38 See previous footnote. 41 Figure 31: Dwellings completed at the end of the year, private funds Comparative evolution, in 1,000 persons 30.00 24.05 25.00 17.83 17.57 20.00 16.62 15.81 15.81 14.35 13.18 14.11 15.00 12.36 11.96 12.08 11.22 10.00 7.67 5.69 6.15 4.98 4.86 5.00 2.69 1.56 2.11 1.82 1.73 0.81 0.95 1.35 1.23 1.28 0.84 1.24 0.51 0.58 0.52 0.60 0.54 0.76 0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Municipiul București Județul Ilfov Source: Adaptation of indicators LOC104B and POP107D, from the INS Tempo database [16.09.2019]. Figure 32: Dwellings completed at the end of the year, public and private funds. Increase (percentage), compared to previous year 392.79% 400% 330.99% 300% 200% 100% 54.38% -1.36% 0% -100% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Municipiul București Iași Timișoara Cluj-Napoca Source: Adaptation of indicator LOC104B,39 from the INS Tempo database [16.09.2019]. 39 See previous footnote. 42 Figure 33: New dwellings completed at the end of the year, public and private funds. Evolution (percentages), compared to previous year 80% 72.75% 63.29% 60% 54.38% 40% 20% 0% -20% -28.55% -29.29% -40% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Municipiul București Județul Ilfov Source: Adaptation of indicator LOC104B, from the INS Tempo database [16.10.2019]. Figure 34: Dwelling stock financed from public funds. Annual evolution, in 1,000 persons 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.46 0.14 0.00 0.00 -1.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Municipiul București Iași Timișoara Cluj-Napoca Source: Adaptation of indicators LOC104B and POP107D,40 from the INS Tempo database [16.09.2019]. 40“Dwellings completed during the year, by sources of financing, by county and by locality” (LOC104B) and “Population by residence, on the 1st of January, by age groups, by age, by gender, by county and by locality” (POP107D). The indicators metadata are available on their webpages. Unfortunately, currently the webpage associated with the Tempo Database does not enable the links function. 43 4.1.1.7. The dynamics of the real estate market of the residential buildings Data analysis captures two important aspects: first of all, it strengthens the position of Ilfov County as investment absorption pool, thus supporting the Bucharest suburbanization process. Here, the relevant data are those which provide a comparative description of the area covered by building permits, both in Ilfov County and in Bucharest City. Secondly, it describes moderate dynamic of the real estate market, both compared to 2008 and to the main cities of the country. As regards the comparison with the main cities in the country, mention should be made that the indicator presented 41 does not fully capture local peculiarities, more specifically the extent to which the market focuses on collective and/or individual dwellings or investment distribution in the functional urban area. Figure 35. Building Permits (BP) issued for residential buildings and their floor area in Bucharest. Evolution (percentages), compared to 2008 140% 120.27% 120% 100.00% 100% 80% 70.10% 57.25% 56.64% 60% 46.80% 40% 51.20% 20% 29.94% 18.45% 13.76% 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Suprafața utilă rezidențială aferentă autorizațiilor de construire Autorizații de construire emise pentru clădiri rezidențiale Source: Adaptation of indicator LOC108B,42 from the INS Tempo database [16.09.2019]. 41 Indicator LOC108B mentions the Building Permits (BP) issued for residential buildings. According to the National Institute of Statistics, residential buildings are those buildings which are fully or mostly (more than 50% of the living space or of the built volume) used for residential purposes. The data available do not allow for differentiation by housing typology. 42 “Building Permits (BP) issued for buildings, by type of construction, by county and by locality” (LOC108B). The indicator metadata are available on its webpage. Unfortunately, currently the webpage associated with the Tempo Database does not enable the links function. 44 Figure 36. Building Permits (BP) issued for residential buildings. Evolution (percentages), compared to 2008 180% 171.75% 160% 140% 120.27% 120% 100% 100.00% 80% 60% 70.10% 57.25% 40% 51.20% 20% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Municipiul București Iași Timișoara Cluj-Napoca Source: Adaptation of indicator LOC108B,43 from the INS Tempo database [16.09.2019]. Figure 37. Residential floor area approved in the building permits. Evolution (percentages), compared to 2008 178.46% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100.00% 100% 80% 60% 56.64% 40% 20% 29.94% 13.76% 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Municipiul București Iași Timișoara Cluj-Napoca Source: Adaptation of indicator LOC108B,44 from the INS Tempo database [16.09.2019]. 43 See previous footnote. 44 See previous footnote. 45 Figure 38. Residential floor area in the building permits issued. Annual comparative evolution, in 1,000 persons 6,000 5,581 5,000 4,000 2,950 3,000 2,537 1,832 2,000 1,264 1,048 1,000 607 145 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Municipiul București Județul Ilfov Source: Adaptation of indicators LOC108B and POP107D, from the INS Tempo database [16.10.2019]. 4.1.1.8. Types of dwellings The housing stock in Bucharest is dominated by two major housing typologies: individual dwellings, more specifically buildings isolated on their plot of land, and collective dwellings, in apartment blocks. The statistical sheets presented at the end of the chapter detail the characteristics of the two housing typologies. Figure 39: Distribution of housing stock by sectors and typology, in 2011 Sector 6 149,438 Sector 5 77,542 Sector 4 112,487 Sector 3 162,144 Sector 2 130,946 Sector 1 76,058 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 Clădiri individuale Clădiri cuplate Clădiri înșiruite Blocuri de locuințe Clădiri destinate spațiului colectiv de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 46 4.1.1.9. Size of dwellings The average floor area in Bucharest is lower both than the average of the main cities in the country and than the average of other European capitals.45 The real estate market has tried to compensate the relatively low values of the floor area, and we note an increase in the average usable floor area available per person for housing built after 2011. However, we need to remember that this indicator can be distorted by social and demographic changes, such as the increase in the number of people living alone, in the number of single parent families etc. We should also note that the average floor area / person is reported for the population having their official residence in that city, and not for the actual resident population46, which can lead to certain distortions. In reality, it is very likely that in all three cities considered, the average floor area / person is actually lower, given their status as university cities and their significant attractiveness for the population in that region. Figure 40: Average floor area, in square meters per person. Annual evolution 24 22 20 19.28 18.27 18 16 14 14.45 13.88 12 10 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Municipiul București Iași Timișoara Cluj-Napoca Source: Adaptation of indicators LOC103B and POP107D,47 from the INS Tempo database [16.09.2019]. 45 For example, Vienna, where the average ranges between 35 and 38 m2 per person. 46 Data related to indicators POP105A, POP106A and POP109A which target the resident population are available only at macroregion, region and county levels. 47 “Existing floor area at the end of the year, by type of property, by county and by locality” (LOC103B) and “Population by residence, on the 1st of January, by age groups, by age, by gender, by county and by locality” (POP107D). The indicators metadata are available on their webpages. Unfortunately, currently the webpage associated with the Tempo Database does not enable the links function. 47 Figure 41: Average useful floor area available per person, by sector, by building age, for individual dwellings, in 2011 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Figure 42: Average useful floor area available per person, by sector, by building age, for collective dwellings, in 2011 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 48 Figure 43. Average number of living quarters in a dwelling by sector, by building age, for individual dwellings 4.60 4.51 4.30 4.00 3.70 3.40 3.10 3.06 2.80 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Source: Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Figure 44: Average number of living quarters in a dwelling by sector, by building age, for individual dwellings 2.80 2.71 2.64 2.60 2.40 2.20 2.00 2.01 1.90 1.80 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 4.1.2.0. Inhabitants Data confirm the trends which are already visible in the market, especially for collective housing. Thus, the housing stock developed prior 1989 is still occupied by families consisting in more than 2 persons, which the housing stock developed after 2000 targets mainly people who intend to live alone or families without children. 49 Figure 45: Average number of persons in a dwelling by sector, by building age, for collective dwellings 2.70 2.56 2.50 2.30 2.10 1.90 1.79 1.70 1.50 1.30 1.10 0.90 0.89 0.70 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Figure 46: Average number of persons in a dwelling by sector, by building age, for collective dwelling 4.50 4.30 4.10 3.90 3.70 3.50 3.30 3.10 2.90 2.70 2.50 2.30 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 50 4.1.2.1. Housing Stock. Use and occupancy levels Data on housing use and degree of occupancy describe the situation when RPL 2011 was developed, therefore they should be interpreted carefully and possibly correlated with the results of the next census, to be able to capture certain trends. However, in Bucharest we note that approximately 10% of the available housing stock became available, of which just 5% are available for sale or rent. There may be multiple reasons for the 5% unavailable housing - including real estate speculation. Figure 47. Dwelling stock structure, by type of use Timișoara 128,022 9,091 Iași 110,600 11,834 Cluj-Napoca 123,818 11,455 București 762,735 81,366 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 Locuință permanentă Locuință secundară Casă de vacanță Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Figure 48. Dwelling stock structure, by degree of occupancy. Timișoara 93.06% 3.90% 2.01% Iași 89.78% 3.74% 4.11% Cluj-Napoca 90.88% 5.04% 2.20% București 89.11% 4.26% 4.82% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Locuințe ocupate Locuințe secundare Locuințe disponibile pentru vânzare, închiriere sau demolare Locuințe disponibile (din alte motive) Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 51 4.1.2.2. Housing Overcrowding Rate According to the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat), the overcrowding rate illustrates the percentage of population living in a crowded household. More specifically, a person lives in a crowded household when they do not have available a minimum number of rooms equal to: 48 • One room for the household; • One room per couple in the household; • One room for each single person aged 18 or more; • One room per pair of single people of the same gender between 12 and 17 years of age; • One room for each single person between 12 and 17 years of age and not included in the previous category; • One room per pair of children under 12 years of age. The data made available by public sources do not have the necessary granularity to enable such estimates. However, given the indicators below, more specifically the share of dwellings which comprise two or more households, for the main types of dwellings we may conclude that, on average, the housing stock of Bucharest does not display overcrowding trends. This assumption is also supported by the superunit ratio between the number of rooms available per dwelling and the number of persons in that dwelling, presented in detail in the statistical sheets presented for each sector.49 The data currently available do not enable us to capture the share of unoccupied dwellings in each sector. Having regard to the data presented in the previous section, it is very likely that when this variable is included in the equation, the image captured by the indicators analyzed below might change and display overcrowding trends, both for individual and collective dwellings. Figure 49: Share of dwellings with two or more households, by sector, by building age, for individual dwellings 14% 13.69% 12% 10% 9.15% 8% 6% 4% 2% ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 48 Information available at: https://bit.ly/2VTGN5N (December 2020). 49 See Annex 2: Statistical sheets - housing in Bucharest.. 52 Figure 50: Share of dwellings with two or more households, by sector, by building age, for collective dwellings 7.00% 6.28% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 4.2 Empirical analysis The empirical analysis is divided by the following sub-chapters: • Analysis of resident population, by age categories; • Analysis of housing stock, by building age; • Typological distribution of the residential built stock in Bucharest, according to building age and to its constructive system. 4.2.1 Social housing stock in Bucharest and its inhabitants The building stock analyses we performed confirm various characteristics identified both by the General Urban Plan of Bucharest City, which is still in force (PUG 2000), and the support studies for the New General Urban Plan of Bucharest City (the Dynamic PUG): • More than 50% of the housing stock in Bucharest is older than 50 years. Additionally, the fact that most dwellings are private property is a disadvantage for the implementation of the building rehabilitation policies, because it entails the existence of dedicated and efficient negotiation mechanisms between the Municipality and property owners. Unfortunately, the mechanisms available are not sufficiently mature; • The level of provision of adequate urban facilities, given the high population density in the large housing ensembles is still a challenge which the Municipality should tackle promptly and efficiently; • The periphery expansion trends, with mainly individual dwellings, require the design of specific policies which should limit the uncontrolled expansion of low-density projects, because they lead to inefficient land use. As for the population age, the trends are relatively clear: • The central perimeter includes areas with a relatively high share (more than 20%) of elderly population, living in the housing stock built before 1945; 53 • The periphery is characterized by uncontrolled expansion, with dwellings occupied mostly by young population; • There are vast areas with undersized plots, but with a large share of young population, overlapping areas of extreme poverty. The mapping of the typological distribution of the residential ensembles built during the socialist period in Bucharest relies on the following information: • Location and delimitation of residential ensembles; • Determining the age of the buildings; • Classification of their constructive system; • Description of the stages of the initial project and of the differences between the project and the reality; • Brief description of the initial project, against published indicators. As we were faced with a rather large range of information, the systematization of references needed significant efforts. We tried to make the most of all sources currently available, regardless whether they were periodical publications or books. As noticeable in the following sections, we can only speak of partial results so far. However, we thought it was important to systematize on the one hand the current research on the residential ensembles built in the socialist period and, on the other hand, to show precisely the gaps in the available information. Therefore, we used the following sources: • Technical Information Bulletins (TIB), 50 edited by the Documentation Centre for Constructions, Architecture and Systematization (CDCAS); • The entire collection of the Architecture Magazine;51 • Residential ensembles catalogues;52 • Review papers on housing in Bucharest.53 4.2.2 Housing ensembles age and constructive system After having corroborated the data on the age of housing ensembles or residential buildings with the information identified on their constructive systems, we managed to define a timeline which highlights the decisive stages in the development of the prefabrication process. Consequently, we identified seven periods, each having specific constructive characteristics: 1918-1939, 1940-1950, 1951-1958, 1959-1963, 1964-1970, 1971-1977 and 1978-1990. The two resulting tables are among the most valuable contributions of this analysis, as they systematize most of the information published so far. The tables can be consulted at Annex 3: Housing ensembles age and building system. 50 Unfortunately, we were unable to find the entire collection of the Bulletins. Therefore, we only used the following issues: 2/1963, 3/1963, 5/1963, 6/1963, 7/1963, 8/1963, 9/1963, 10/1963, 11/1963, 12/1963, 6/1968 and 8/1969. 51 Unlike the Technical Information Bulletins, we had access to the entire collection of the Arhitectura Journal, due to the kind efforts of Mrs. Olimpia Sultana, from the Library of the Union of Romanian Architects. The following numbers issues proved relevant for the study of residential ensembles built in the socialist period: 1/1950, 2-3/1950, 4-5/1950, 6/1950, 1/1951, 2/1951, 3-4/1951, 1-2/1951, 3-4/1951, 1-2/1952, 3/1952, 4-5/1952, 6-7/1952, 8/1952, 9-10/1952, 11/1952, 12/1952, 1/1954, 4/1954, 5/1954, 6-7/1954, 9/1954, 5/1955, 6/1955, 7/1955, 8/1955, 11-12/1955, 3/1956, 4-5/1956, 6/1956, 7/1956, 8/1956, 10/1956, 12/1956, 1/1957, 2/1957, 7/1957, 8/1957, 9/1957, 1-2/1958, 4/1958, 5/1958, 6/1958, 7/1958, 10-11/1958, 12/1958, 2/1959, 4/1959, 5/1959, 6/1959, 1/1960, 2/1960, 4/1960, 5/1960, 1/1961, 2/1961, 3/1961, 6/1961, 2/1962, 4/1962, 1/1963, 2/1963, 4/1963, 5/1963, 6/1964, 2/1965, 3/1965, 5/1965, 1/1966, 2-3/1966, 4/1966, 2/1967, 4/1968, 1/1970, 4/1970, 6/1970, 1/1971, 1/1972, 3/1974, 2/1975, 4/1975, 22/1976, 3/1976, 6/1977, 5/1979, 1-2/1980, 6/1981, 2/1982, 4/1983, 6/1983, 2/1985, 4/1985, 6/1986, 1/1987, 4/1987, 1/1989 and 21/2004. 52 See Șerban, 1962; 53 See Lăzărescu, 1977; Derer, 1985; Onofrei, 2002; Noica, 2003; Zahariade, 2011; Panaitescu, 2013; Stroe, 2015; Suditu, 2016; Tulbure, 2016; Calotă, 2017 and Voinea, 2018. 54 The study on the constructive system follows the logic of the prefabrication and industrialization processes in housing development. Starting from these considerations, there are several variations of the basic constructive systems, each of them with their characteristic elements. After the final definition and classification of all derivatives of the constructive systems, categories which display insignificant differences should be revised and, possibly, merged. 4.2.3 Inhabitants aged 0 to 14 years old REF _Ref31110259 \h Figure 73 indicates the shares of children and young people under the age of 14 in the census precincts, superimposed on the building stock age and on the urban marginalized areas, according to the Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas in Romania. Shares range between 6.70% and 17.70%. Figure 51. Inhabitants aged 0 to 14 years old in 2011, percentages Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 55 Using Figure 51, we can note as follows: • The population aged 0 to 14 years old is concentrated mainly at the periphery of Bucharest. This confirms the urban sprawl trend noted in the past 10 years, which has characterized mainly the dynamics of young families. • The areas with a large share of young population and housing stock built mainly after 1977 are as follows: Militari, Crângași, Colentina, Vitan, East Titan, and Băneasa. Such areas can be further stimulated by the development of public transport and by designing quality urban infrastructure and public amenities; • There are areas with undersized plots, but with a large share of population aged 0 to 14 years old, overlapping marginalized communities: Sector 5, Ferentari area, Sector 3, Industriilor area. Dedicated interventions and specific urban policies are necessary to improve housing quality in these areas. 4.2.4 Inhabitants aged 15 to 64 years old Figure 52 illustrates the shares of young people over the age of fifteen in the census precincts, also superimposed on the building stock age and on the urban marginalized areas, according to the Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas in Romania. Shares range between 58.10% and 86.10%. Here we can note as follows: • The following areas have mostly mature population: Crângași, Rahova, Tudor Vladimirescu, Văcărești, Aviației, Henri Coandă, Pantelimon, Tineretului , Baicului, Electronicii and Militari; • As Vitan, Militari and Crângași neighborhoods are also characterized by a significant share of population aged 0 to 14 years old, they can be considered neighborhoods with young families, under development. 56 Figure 52. Inhabitants aged 15 to 64 years old in 2011, percentages Source: Adapted after the Population and Housing Census 2011 (PHC 2011). 4.2.5 Inhabitants older than 64 years old Similarly to previous cases, Figure 53 indicates the shares of elderly persons, superimposed on the building stock age and on the urban marginalized areas, according to the Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas in Romania. In this case, shares range between 3.90% and 34.40%. 57 Figure 53. Inhabitants older than 64 years old in 2011, percentages Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. For a more detailed picture, we represent below the breakdown by age categories (%) as follows: 0-19 years old, 20-34 years old, 35-54 years old, 55-64 years old and over 64 years old. 58 Figure 54. People aged 0-19 years old, percentages Figure 55. People aged 20-34 years old, percentages Figure 56. People aged 35-54 years old, percentages Figure 57. People aged 55-64 years old, percentages Figure 58. People older than 64 years old, percentages Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 59 We note the following: • The population older than 64 years old is mainly concentrated in the center and northern areas of the Capital. Specific urban regeneration policies and strategies for the city center are necessary to improve housing quality in these areas; • There is a significant share of elderly population in the large residential ensembles in Drumul Taberei, in Balta Albă – Titan and in Berceni. In Drumul Taberei and Balta Albă – Titan neighborhoods there are areas with a concentration of small-size dwellings, with the average floor area/dwelling below the national average of 35 m2/dwelling; • In the case of Drumul Taberei, Titan and Berceni neighborhoods we note an additional issue, which is related to the housing stock age, more specifically the collective dwellings built before 1977, in 1951-1958 and 1964-1970. These ensembles have exceeded their standard life cycle, currently established at 50 years, and require costly rehabilitation and accommodation interventions in the future, to be adapted to new inhabitants; • Cotroceni, Vatra Luminoasă and Floreasca are relatively old neighborhoods, with a share of population older than 65 years old ranging between 20.11% and 25.50%, while Andronache, Ion Creangă, Bucureștii Noi are areas where this share ranges between 13.61% and 16.20%. In the neighborhoods with collective dwellings with mainly old population, there might be issues related to the provision of public services targeting this age category. Currently, neighborhoods seem unprepared to meet the requirements of this category of population, both in terms of public spaces availability and in terms of availability of maintenance and rehabilitation centers. 4.2.6 Residential stock age Having corroborated the previous analyses to the analysis on the residential stock built in 1981-1990 (see Figure 59) and in 1991-2011 (see Figure 60), we note as follows: • The mature population is concentrated in those precincts with a significant share of the housing stock built in 1981-1990. This confirms the demographic dynamics of the socialist period, when Romania was among the countries with the highest fertility and nuptiality rates, and reported a radical decrease in the divorce rate, extramarital birth rate, average age before the first marriage or average age at first child delivery. Seen in its evolution, the phenomenon explains why a significant share of the mature population is concentrated in the collective dwelling ensembles built in 1981-1990; • In 1991-2011 we note an increase of the housing stock, mainly in the periphery areas: in the west, in Sector 6: Militari neighborhood; in the south, in Sector 4: Progresul neighborhood, Apărătorii Patriei neighborhood and the area where Sector 5 expands towards Măgurele; in the north, in Sector 5, Băneasa and Aviației neighborhoods. The growing housing stock at the periphery of Bucharest confirms the urban sprawl trend, either as individual dwellings, especially in the southern part, or as new residential ensembles, mainly in the northern part of Bucharest. In 2006-2011, new residential buildings are concentrated mainly in the western part of Drumul Taberei neighborhood, and in the east, on both sides of Theodor Pallady Boulevard. 60 Figure 59. Housing built in 1981-1990, percentages Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 61 Figure 60. Housing built in 1991-2011, percentages Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 4.2.7 Amenities and citizen satisfaction The comments included in this section build upon the sociological survey conducted for the Integrated Urban Development Strategy for Bucharest (IUDS B) by a World Bank team in the autumn of 2019. Figure 61 provides a spatial illustration of the answers received for the questions on level of coverage with amenities in the census precinct, while Figure 62 reflects the level of satisfaction among Bucharest citizens. 62 Figure 61. Coverage with amenities Source: Sociological survey for the Integrated Urban Development Strategy for Bucharest (IUDS B), autumn 2019. 63 Figure 62. Level of satisfaction with the existing amenities in the area Source: Sociological survey for the Integrated Urban Development Strategy for Bucharest (IUDS B), autumn 2019. Against this background, we can note as follows: • Tudor Vladimirescu, Cotroceni, Sălaj and Ferentari neighborhoods are considered areas with low level of public amenities. Băneasa neighborhood is in a similar category; • Industriilor area is more problematic, since it is considered an area with low level of public amenities and it is included in the Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas. Moreover, the area is inhabited by relatively young population. Targeted policies on various levels, from education to housing stock rehabilitation are necessary to improve housing quality in such an area, and they can prove costly for the Municipality; • Another sensitive area is Crângași, which is characterized by young population, with young children, and rather poor urban amenities; • In general, the precincts with low levels of public amenities report a low level of satisfaction among their population. Such circumstances not only point at the need to redesign the public 64 amenities system, but also to review their quality, insofar as this can be controlled by the Municipality; • The areas where the population seems most satisfied with the existing amenities are as follows: Tei neighborhood, Tineretului neighborhood, Kiseleff neighborhood, Floreasca neighborhood and the central area. However, we need to remember that these are the areas which include some of the largest parks in Bucharest. • Militari area is positioned among the relatively well served areas, with an average level of satisfaction with the quality of amenities. The most likely explanation is the fast development of the housing stock, together with the diversification of service portfolio. 4.2.8 Rejuvenation index and Residential stock age Figure 63 provides a synthesis of the analyses above, using the rejuvenation index, consisting in the population younger than fourteen years old, compared to the population over 65 years old, superimposed on the residential stock age. The conclusions are as follows: • The areas with the oldest population are: the south-west part of the Central Area, Drumul Taberei neighborhood, in the western part of Bucharest, Tineretului neighborhood and Berceni neighborhood, in the southern area, Titan – Balta Albă neighborhood, in the eastern area, and Kiseleff, Floreasca and Bucureștii Noi neighborhoods, in the northern area of the Capital; • The areas with younger population are as follows: Militari, Sălaj, Ferentari, Vitan, Progresul, Industriilor and Cățelu; • The areas with old population and housing stock built before 1977 are as follows: Drumul Taberei, Titan – Balta Albă, Berceni, Cotroceni and Floreasca; • The housing stock built after 1977, inhabited mainly by mature population is positioned in the following areas: Băneasa, Militari, Crângași – Giulești, Cotroceni, Vitan and Titan East; • The new housing stock, consisting either in individual dwellings or in collective dwellings ensembles is reported mainly at the periphery and is inhabited by a relatively young population. To complete the picture illustrated by Figure 63, we performed a spatial representation of the current thermal rehabilitation process of apartment blocks, by sector (see Figure 64). Mention should be made here that the thermal rehabilitation process does not entail capital repair works, therefore the standard life cycle of the buildings is not affected. 65 Figure 63. Rejuvenation index and residential stock age Source: Sociological survey for the Integrated Urban Development Strategy for Bucharest (IUDS B), autumn 2019, and adaptation after PHC 2011. 66 Figure 64. Current stage of thermal rehabilitation of residential buildings, January 2020 Source: Adapted after the webpages of the sector municipalities, in January 2020.54 54 For District 1: http://bit.ly/38WJ7h0 (under development), and http://bit.ly/38WJ7h0 (design stage), respectively (December 2020); for District 2: http://bit.ly/2xAxbof (December 2020); for District 3: http://bit.ly/2TUhO2R (under development), and http://bit.ly/2QAxOoL (finalised), respectively (December 2020); for District 4: http://bit.ly/2QfgTI3(December 2020); for District 5: http://bit.ly/2WoXZm1 (December 2020) and for District 6: http://bit.ly/2xIRXSR (December 2020). 67 5 PUBLIC SPACES IN BUCHAREST: RESULTS Similarly to the analysis on housing in Bucharest, we have used a set which reflected the following objectives: 1. A synthetic, but systematic perspective on the current state of public spaces in Bucharest; 2. A synthetic perspective on the street, as a crucial component of the public space system of the city; 3. Recommendations on public space management in Bucharest; 4. A unitary database which includes the following data sets: • The buildings of Bucharest; • The street network in Bucharest; • Points marked by small-size public spaces, called “point-like public spaces”;55 • Points marked by abandoned public spaces, called “abandoned public spaces”;56 • Green spaces and cemeteries, called “surface public spaces”;57 • The lines marked by linear public spaces, called “linear public spaces”.58 5.1 Analysis of public spaces in Bucharest This section provides a synthetic analysis of the distribution of public spaces in Bucharest, using the following three geometry types: point-like spaces,59 linear spaces60 and surface spaces 61. This section also provides quantitative data: total surface, surface amplitude, arithmetic mean and median. A special category identified is represented by the abandoned spaces. These are spaces of various sizes, with no recent intervention when the stocktaking exercise was performed, which nevertheless show potential to become attractive for the inhabitants of a certain area. This chapter presents various quantitative data on the public spaces of Bucharest. Such data can serve as basis for a set of relevant conclusions both at city and sector scale. Later on, a detailed analysis of the types of spaces for each sector will point out possible actions at sector level. Public spaces can be regarded either as potential, as city assets, or as liabilities, difficult to manage and costly to maintain. When we speak of public spaces, most often, local administrations are not fully aware of the field situation (what are the spaces they own, what is their quality and to what extent they meet the citizens’ needs). Consequently, the decisions related to the management of such public assets become difficult, and the interventions for the development or preservation of such spaces prove sometimes inefficient. Therefore, we believe that the stocktaking of public spaces in Bucharest, although incipient, is crucial to determine the prioritization of interventions in such spaces. In the first stage, the stocktaking process focused on gathering information on the type, size, condition and quality of such spaces. We believe it essential for the future planning efforts to add data on the land tenure, the management 55 Point-like public spaces are relatively small in size and are generally areas which cover less than 3 hectares. 56 Abandoned public spaces are in general derelict places where no recent interventions on the urban furniture, lighting system, pavement, green areas etc. could be identified. 57 Surface spaces cover areas exceeding 3ha. This includes public gardens (3-15 ha), parks (over 15 ha), as well as cemeteries. 58 In the case of linear spaces, their length exceeds their width. This category usually includes streets, boulevards etc., together with their buffers. 59Point-like spaces are relatively small in size. Usually, they include squares or organised areas which cover less than 3 hectares. 60 In the case of linear spaces, their length exceeds by far their width. This category usually includes streets, boulevards etc., together with their buffers. 61 Surface spaces cover areas exceeding 3 hectares. This includes public gardens (3-15 ha), parks (over 15 ha) etc. 68 structure and the financial issues (operational and maintenance costs, revenues and expenditure etc.), as we had no access to such data when drafting the study. 5.1.1 Brief history of public spaces in Bucharest To put it plainly, public spaces may be considered those spaces between buildings or those facilities open to public which generally describe three types of urban spaces: streets and pedestrian areas, open spaces, such as markets, squares, promenades, gardens and parks and public facilities, such as community centers, libraries etc. In this study, the analysis is focused exclusively on the first two types of spaces, while community public facilities, typically indoor spaces, are part of different support studies included in the Strategy. What is characteristic for public spaces, regardless their definition (in terms of function, spatial distribution, spatial relationship with the city and surrounding areas) is the fact that access is allowed to any category of citizens. We can start from this understanding, even though sometimes access may only be permitted during certain hours and for certain categories of persons. We should mention that the street, as a defining element of the spatial-functional texture of the city, although is public space, could fall under the scope of this synthesis only insofar as the adjacent public amenities represent major determinants of urban life (commercial or cultural facilities etc.), with a symbolic significance which has been built over several generations. From this perspective, a first category of public spaces in the historical Bucharest was represented by churches, gathering around them the neighborhoods which constituted their parishes62, and by the monasteries. Buildings and places of worship, which attract believers at a weekly pace or during major religious celebrations, determined gatherings for religious communion. Such public spaces were spatial landmarks bearing an identity value for the citizens of Bucharest. Another category was represented by retail buildings which, due to their utilitarian nature, became essential public spaces for the city. Also, the buildings and areas defined by headquarters of public office represented those areas which attracted the public involved in the exercise of administrative or judicial powers. We can also mention the empty areas 150-200 years ago, which has ad-hoc purposes: these are vague areas represented by vacant land, actually residual land, which is still somewhat preserved in the texture of the current urban fabric, though much smaller in size. The ongoing evolution of the city, both in terms of the growing complexity of urban functions and in terms of the number of inhabitants, caused the spatial expansion of Bucharest. These general urban dynamics elements were closely linked to the social and economic context of the country and to the political specificities of the different historical periods. The fast industrialization measures imposed in Romania fostered mass migration to cities, especially to Bucharest, and this entailed active efforts to provide the necessary housing facilities and urban functions required by the concentration of large masses of people in large collective housing ensembles. Another important aspect in the evolution of public spaces was the paradigm shift regarding the delimitation of public and private spaces63, including the spatial and legal aspects of the free urban planning in the collective housing ensembles. The boulevards built between the two world wars in Bucharest reflect the mid-19th century Parisian urban planning interventions. The shift from the closed urban planning, specific to the Middle Ages period, where the street represents the public space, as opposed to the private space which is determined by the delimitation 62 See Voiculescu, 1997: 146ff. 63See Benevolo, 2003: 162. Benevolo highlights the defining spatial effect induced by Haussman when shaping the large Parisian boulevards with the “New legal order [which] strengthens the private property and initiative...”. 69 of yards, to the free urban planning promoted by Le Corbusier and implemented in Bucharest after the Second World War by building block ensembles produced a category of land located between buildings, which was collective property. The collective dwelling ensembles and their facilities were built using the design principles of the ‘70s, largely based on the concepts of the Neighborhood Unit, coined and initiated by Clarence Perry in 1929. The approach resulted in the creation of public spaces defined by the neighborhood commercial centers and by planted areas (squares, playgrounds), linked with the facilities with selected or restricted access (education, healthcare). A very important category in the spatial and functional definition of the urban space is the street, which most often represents a category of public space which is informal in terms of spatial representativeness, but is essential as identity landmark. We cannot ignore any possible small-size informal public spaces, which have the potential to generate a sense of belonging in certain social groups. The most obvious trait of public spaces in Bucharest is their diversity, which sometimes reaches incongruence in terms of city scale organization. This leads to a need to rank actions and interventions, depending on the level of the local administration (sector or city level). The distribution of public spaces reflects the historical evolution of the city. Thus, the fabric of the central area presents functional elements which aim at representativeness, illustrated both by their symbolic dimensions and by their preponderant orientation towards certain leisure activities (see Figure 65). Beyond the attribute of representativeness, public spaces located in the very proximity of the historical center have elements of the areas mentioned above, including the sometimes linear placement of amenities adjacent to the boulevards. 70 Figure 65. Distribution of local and representative public spaces Source: The authors. The development of large concentrations of multifunctional commercial and sometimes mass-culture facilities and of the stores network diminished the importance and operational logic of some traditional spaces, a natural trend which was generated by the change of consumption habits. Mention should be made that their distribution throughout the city represented a paradigm shift for the operation of public spaces in the capital city, as these centers of interest became the main attraction of the citizens, to the detriment of other types of areas. 5.1.2 Distribution of public spaces in Bucharest Figure 70 presents the result of stocktaking for various types of public spaces in Bucharest, according to the methodology we detail in Chapter 4. The distribution of point-like spaces is relatively uniform in the central area and in the area right near the central ring. However, the lack of interventions in the public space is visible especially at the periphery, where we find many of the new residential ensembles (mainly in the west and south-west areas). 71 The point-like public spaces, usually represented by squares or playgrounds for children, are placed mainly in the central area or within collective housing facilities. The need for small-sized public spaces is felt especially in the areas with individual dwellings (Andronache, Industriilor, Cotroceni etc.). Although Sectors 2 and 6 lack vast planned public spaces like we see in the other sectors (Herăstrău Park, Tineretului Park, Titan Park, Văcărești Delta), they benefit from various medium - or small-sized parks (2-10 ha) which manage to serve with relative success most of the population. Against this background, Sector 5 is still lagging behind, with relatively few point-like spaces or surface spaces. Surface spaces which cover the large parks of the city can be found mainly in areas with high population density, such as Pantelimon, Vatra Luminoasă, Kiseleff, Drumul Taberei, Balta Albă-Titan neighborhoods. Unfortunately, these vast areas are interventions performed prior to 1989. No major interventions to create representative public spaces at city level, whether parks or public squares, have been implemented in the past 30 years. There are no vast public spaces in the central area, mainly in the eastern part of the main traffic ring. Also, there is no unitary approach at city level to provide access to the city water elements (the chain of lakes and Dâmbovița). This is noticeable due to the scattered distribution of the point-like spaces. Sector 2 is the exception from the rule, as green spaces of various sizes have been created here in the past 10 years. However, most water banks are still not accommodated or accessible to the public. Recent individual housing developments along the water have compromised access to significant parts of the lake banks. Adequate provision of equipment and facilities should be in place so as to enable the valorization of lake banks for leisure purposes. This should be supported in partnership with the neighboring ATUs. Also, the city green space network is not complete yet. There is a need to insert connecting elements (streets with roadside vegetation) and point-like elements, such as squares, gardens, which should animate the routes. Qualitative data indicate that a vast majority of the spaces identified only benefit from basic amenities (minimalist urban furniture, limited public lightning etc.). The summary sector description sheets included in the annex provide a more detailed analysis of the amenities identified in such spaces. Nevertheless, at city level, we chose to present the distribution of public toilets and water facilities (fountains and drinking water fountains) which are considered essential amenities for a quality urban space. Thus, Bucharest only benefits from 220 public toilets, whether ecological or automatic, which are managed by the sector municipalities or by the Bucharest Lakes, Parks and Leisure Administration (ALPAB). Most public toilets are managed by ALPAB, more specifically 52% of the total. Conversely, the municipalities of Sectors 2 and 5 only manage 1% of the total toilets.64 64 Data available at https://bit.ly/2TLVtE6 [28.05.2020] 72 Figure 66. Type of toilets in Bucharest Tipul toaletelor din București 120 97 100 80 60 48 40 17 17 20 8 11 8 12 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 Sectorul 1 Sectorul 2 Sectorul 3 Sectorul 4 Sectorul 5 Sectorul 6 ALPAB Toalete Automate Toalete Ecologice Source: Adapted after https://bit.ly/2TKyXeK [28.05.2020] Figure 67. Percentage of public toilets managed by institutions in Bucharest Procentajul toaletelor publice aflate în subordinea instituțiilor din București 11% 1% 5% 3% 1% 52% 27% Sectorul 1 Sectorul 2 Sectorul 3 Sectorul 4 Sectorul 5 Sectorul 6 ALPAB Source: Adapted after https://bit.ly/2TKyXeK [28.05.2020]. 73 Figure 68. Distribution of public toilets in Bucharest Source: Adapted after https://bit.ly/3gs79pg [28.05.2020]. Both the analysis of public toilets distribution and the analysis of types of water amenities indicate poor endowment of public spaces and parks with such essential amenities. Public toilets are an alternative especially for categories of persons in more special circumstances (pregnant women, parents with young children, elderly), as well as for the homeless, as public toilets are often the only place where they can use a toilet, including for personal hygiene. Drinking water fountains should be an integral part of the park and bicycle lane system of the city and should add to the network of public toilets. However, a large part of eastern area of the city is poorly equipped with such amenities. Also, many of the existing drinking water fountains are often out of order or closed. 74 Figure 69. Types of water installations in Bucharest Source: Adapted digital map from Apa Nova. Most of the point-like spaces identified need rehabilitation interventions, to turn them into attractions for the inhabitants in that area. Moreover, Figure 70 shows a relatively high number of abandoned public spaces (mainly along the west-east direction and in the central area. Such spaces could be regenerated under public-private partnerships, with low costs but with important impact on enhancing the quality of life. Linea spaces are located mainly along the large roads (Timișoara Blvd, Pantelimon Blvd, Ștefan cel Mare Blvd etc.). These arterial roads benefit from generous sidewalks, usually delimited by roadside vegetation, and host commercial and public food activities. Although their capacity matches the current pedestrian flows, the quality of the urban picture is rather poor. The pavement is degraded, the aesthetic quality of the first ground functions is poor, the urban furniture is damaged, there are no bicycle lanes to facilitate safe traffic both for pedestrians and for cyclists etc. On the other hand, the linear spaces in the central area could take over the role of quality public spaces, but they are still blocked by vehicles parked on the sidewalk. 75 Figure 70. Distribution of point-like, abandoned, linear and surface spaces in Bucharest Source: The authors. 5.1.2.1. Point-like spaces Public squares and piazzas have an identity role, serving as a permanent representation of the society. They are important nodes of the public spaces network, which underpin the city structure. They also substantiate the hierarchy of urban spaces and are landmarks in the mental map of the city. 65 The concept underpinning the configuration of a square should be based on its role in the city structure and life. A square can take many shapes, depending on the factors which shape its appearance – location, origin, historical developments, significance, nature, traffic etc. Therefore, a square could have various functions: park, residential, representativeness etc. Such a space is also defined by the quality of its boundaries. Traditional squares of the historical compact areas of a city, defined by the surrounding buildings, are usually, among the best quality public spaces. When the squares are crossed by a crowded road, their perception and overall quality are affected. The quality of a square also depends on the square size (e.g., the ratio between its surface and the height of the surrounding buildings). 65 See Chirilă et al., 2020: 30 76 Moreover, it is important that such areas are multifunctional. They should provide a variety of activities to their users and the freedom to move freely, unrestricted. A square should accommodate wide public meetings, should have sufficient seats, sufficient shadow and should include adornment elements such as installation art66. The distribution of point-like spaces (see Figure 71) by surface illustrates essential aspects for the city dynamics. Most spaces exceeding 500 sqm identified are playgrounds or crossroads squares. This can be easily noted as they are concentrated in the large residential ensembles (Drumul Taberei, Berceni, Balta Albă – Titan). Although the development of playgrounds in these neighborhoods in the past years is commendable, we should mention that many such spaces leave much to be desired in terms of quality and identity. In most cases, the materials used are not child-friendly, the spaces are almost always delimited by metal fences, and the playground appearance is almost identical, regardless the neighborhood. Moreover, these spaces were developed only for a certain age category, and most often teenagers do not benefit from spaces designed for their age. Therefore, most often than not, children end up using unsafe spaces (parking lots near apartment blocks, waste collection areas etc.) (see Figure 71 and REF _Ref41474638 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Annex 8: Examples of point-like, linear and surface spaces: 66 Without a coherent art promotion programme for the public space in Bucharest, art are interventions most often a conjectural presence in the public spaces, without bringing a significant contribution to their quality. For convincing, current and quality art, there should be a programme in place which relies on the identity of the public space and is themed according to the peculiarities of the location. 77 Figure 71. Distribution of point-like spaces covering less than 500 m2 and more than 500 m2 in Bucharest Source: The authors. Figure 72. Playgrounds in the large residential ensembles Source: Google Maps. 78 Table 2. Statistical data for the point-like spaces of Bucharest City 650, of which 96% are spaces of local importance and 4% Number of spaces identified are representative spaces Total surface 137 ha Amplitude From 31 m2 to 30,768 m2 (3.0768 ha) Arithmetic mean 2,109 m2 Median 791 m2 Standard deviation 3,863. Source: The authors. Figure 73. Distribution of point-like spaces, by sectors Distribuția spațiilor punctuale, pe sectoare Sectorul 6 Sectorul 1 17% 19% Sectorul 5 Sectorul 2 10% 12% Sectorul 4 Sectorul 3 22% 20% Sectorul 1 Sectorul 2 Sectorul 3 Sectorul 4 Sectorul 5 Sectorul 6 Source: The authors. There is a relatively balanced distribution of point-like spaces in all sectors. Although Sectors 2 and 6 lack vast planned public spaces like we see in the other sectors (Herăstrău Park, Tineretului Park, Titan Park, Văcărești Delta), they benefit from various medium- or small-sized parks (2-10 ha) which manage to serve quite satisfactorily most of the population. Against this background, Sector 5 is still lagging behind, with relatively few point-like spaces or surface spaces; The situation mentioned above requires the development of regeneration policies or the development of leisure spaces, which should meet the needs of various age groups and should encourage intergenerational interactions. Also, special attention should be paid in the planning process of such spaces, from the design to the implementation stages, where details play a crucial role for creating a quality space. Beyond the rehabilitation of existing public spaces and their integration into a wider system of mineral or green spaces, there might be alternative options designed to activate spaces which could be used throughout the day. Thus, the use of school yards for various sports and leisure activities outside the school timetable could become a viable solution for the city. These spaces can become activity cores in communities, especially in places where the existing space does not enable such interventions or extensions. 79 In Figure 74, we chose to represent primary and secondary education schools and high schools yards which could be used after school hours. The image shows a pretty clear option to complete the network of point-like and abandoned spaces in the large socialist ensembles with such new surfaces. Also, a similar approach could be proposed for the area within the central traffic ring, where a relatively high number of schools could be open for communities after the school hours. Figure 74. Primary and secondary education school yards in Bucharest which could be used outside school hours Source: The authors. 80 5.1.2.2. Abandoned spaces Abandoned spaces are a special category of public spaces. These are spaces of various sizes, with no recent intervention, which nevertheless show potential to become attractive for the inhabitants of a certain area. They can be both mineral and planted surfaces, which developed spontaneously. We should note the relatively high number of abandoned spaces within the inner ring of the city which, with relatively modest rehabilitation investments, could host activities specific to the central city areas. However, no data on the land tenure were made available when the stocktaking exercise was conducted. Therefore, it is important to have a clear picture on the land tenure and to design dedicated mechanisms on a case-by-case basis. For example, pursuant to Law 227/2015 67 on the Tax Code, additional taxation mechanisms up to 500% can be applied for abandoned and derelict lands property of individuals or of legal entities, so as to encourage their maintenance until further constructions are finalized. Table 3. Statistical data for the abandoned spaces of Bucharest City Number of spaces identified 104, 100% spaces of local importance Total surface 18 ha Amplitude From 48 m2 to 13,657 m2 (1.3657 ha) Arithmetic mean 1,740 m2 Median 855 m2 Standard deviation 2,396 Source: The authors. 67 See L 277/2015, Art. 489, §5, available at https://bit.ly/2AmWKul [14.05.2020] 81 Figure 75. Distribution of abandoned spaces in Bucharest Source: The authors. In the picture below we chose to represent abandoned spaces exceeding 4,000 m 2 identified according to the methodology detailed above.68 As these are relatively large areas without any visible recent rehabilitation interventions, it is important that targeted interventions should be designed after the clarification of their tenure. Such interventions can start from fiscal instruments such as additional taxes for derelict lands (in case of private property) to regeneration measures and interventions to turn such areas into green spaces or public spaces which attract the community. In the central area, such spaces are represented by the land in front of the Romanian Academy which, together with Unirii Square, Esplanada land and Alba Iulia Square could become the object of a complex rehabilitation intervention along the west-east axis. 68 This 4,000 m2 surface is almost double compared to the average surface established after identifying the abandoned spaces. Thus, the size of such surfaces is a major potential for the future development of the public space network in this city. 82 Other areas which could be rehabilitated are located near existing parks (Drumul Taberei Park, Bazilescu Park, Titan Park, the chain of lakes) and with minimum investments could become an integral part of a vast system of public spaces at city level. Figure 76. Spaces identified as abandoned spaces, covering more than 4.000 m2 and the population served over a 10-minute distance Source: The authors 83 Figure 77. Distribution of abandoned spaces, by sector Distribuția spațiilor abandonate, pe sectoare Sector 1 9% Sector 2 Sector 6 15% 36% Sector 3 Sector 5 23% 6% Sector 4 11% Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Source: The authors. Figure 78. Examples of abandoned spaces: Source: Google Maps. 5.1.2.3. Linear spaces Streets are a linear element of the basic design of public spaces. The role of streets in a city should not be reduced to the transport function. Streets should be a pleasant space for walks, frequent stops and even spending some longer leisure time.69 The specific character and purpose of a street are determined by its spatial framework, especially by the street width and by the manner in which the street is included in the city structure. The quality of the architectural details of the adjacent buildings and the use of their facades have a significant contribution to the quality of public spaces at street level. For the streets to be safe and inhabitant-friendly, the building should communicate with the street at ground floor level. This 69 See Chirilă et al., 2020: 28f. 84 depends very much on the typology of the buildings, where services and commercial facilities are facing the street and can be accessed from the street. At the same time, the density of eye-level stimuli, the access to buildings, the placement of window shops and many other such elements are also important. Street classification by street width and type of traffic does not guarantee the high quality of the adjacent public space, because it does not replace other important factors which build the personality of a place. Just like the location of the structure or of the furniture in a building, street traffic and morphology should create a harmonious composition. Therefore, the concepts used in the design or in the reconversion of existing public spaces should rely on the importance of the street in the urban structure of the city. Streets can have different personalities, from quiet little streets or shopping alleys to symbolic promenades. The street views are also part of the picture. They add to the street image and help pedestrians find their way around. Such images should be maintained and enriched with compositions which include trees or roadside trees. The spatial appearance of a street and of its amenities should be designed having in mind that they are perceived at eye-level, during walks or while passing by at a certain speed. Every time the pace, the scale and the location of objects are perceived at high speed, the human scale disappears and the space if distorted. The crossroads can often create a space of greater importance that the streets themselves. The space potential generated by crossroads and by local spatial peculiarities can be used to create a pleasant, informal, inhabitant-friendly area (e.g. by planting a tree, by using specific urban furniture, or small- scale architectural elements and installation art in the public space). At crossroads and important traffic nodes where activities and people concentrate spontaneously, the traffic impact should be minimized by means of space accommodations and there should be active interventions so as to turn that place into a high-quality public space, easy to use by all city inhabitants. The image below renders the poor connectivity of the linear spaces by means of alternative transport means, more specifically the lack of coherence of the bicycle lane system crossing the large boulevards of the city. This have a negative impact on a possible green space network, which could be accessed through a coherent alternative transport system. Although these arterial roads benefit from generous sidewalks, which in some cases are delimited by roadside vegetation, the quality of the urban landscape from a pedestrian perspective is rather poor. The pavement is degraded, the aesthetic quality of the first ground functions is poor, the urban furniture is damaged, there are no design elements to suggest flow segregation so as to encourage safe crossing etc. Moreover, the uncoordinated placement of advertisement on facades has a negative impact on the overall image of the public space. Although the “Regulation on the delegation of the public service of public and private property management of street and outdoor advertising in Bucharest City” was approved by HGCMB 99/2018, the results are yet to be seen. This is a direct consequence of the fact that the Municipality does not currently have accurate records of the number of authorizations for outdoor advertising, and of the number of permits, lease or concession contracts and of the property deeds for most advertisement media.70 The image below shows another important aspect: the major linear spaces are located mainly along large boulevards. They can be doubled by a lower granularity network within the middle ring, where some of the streets could take over this public space role, but they are still blocked by the vehicles parked on the sidewalks. Such an approach requires both cooperation between the six sectors and parking fee policies together with policies which encourage walking instead of driving in the central area. 70 OAR (2016): 24, document available at https://bit.ly/3fz0p8P [07.05.2020] 85 Figure 79. Distribution of linear spaces in relation to existing and proposed bicycle lanes Source: The authors. 5.1.2.4. Street issue from a public space perspective Bucharest cannot remain mainly a driving city. However, any change, even a slight mitigation of the effects of personal vehicles on the infrastructure, accessibility and public life of the city is extremely difficult. Therefore, this analysis: 1. Describes and documents the main reasons why street improvement is a difficult task at the moment: • The administrative fragmentation (or life under the ruins of the socialist planning system); • Incomplete or deficient legislation; • Lack of data or of a data collection model (or the lack of an accurate picture of the street condition); 86 • Professional discourse (or the lack of a conceptual model to understand the street space); • Lack of short-term planning and action concepts, with immediate impact, which can be implemented under the current administrative and legal conditions. Proposes a theoretical framework for understanding the street issues against the background of the urban transformations occurred during the past 30 years. Defines short-, medium- and long-term recommendations, with the medium- and long-term recommendations building on the short-term actions. Definition of the issue “Public space is everything around the private spaces, which brings them together. It is what happens to you once you are out of your house.” Policeman, 42 years old. In 2012-2019 there were annual series of interviews in Bucharest, during the Urban Experience Competition71, where students were asked to define the public space, to highlight its significance, to list the spaces with identity value in Bucharest and those they use, with their qualities and flaws, to indicate how they would like them improved, to provide examples of public spaces in Bucharest developed in the past 20 years and to indicate how they use them, to mention who is in charge with the maintenance and development of public spaces and to point out their own involvement in such matters. 180 questionnaires (2012-2014) were used as documentation for the PhD thesis Realitate, așteptări, ofertă. Spațiul public bucureștean actual. Piețele centrale bucureștene [(Reality, Expectations, Supply). Current Public Space in Bucharest. Bucharest Central Squares],72 and the investigation can continue in order to check the lively or the standstill relation between the public and the space which, in theory, should serve them. From a theoretical viewpoint, the definition of the public space seems universally appropriated, with a focus placed not on the physical features, but on the potential of functional and communication connections provided by the public space. However, based on own experience and example, most Bucharest inhabitants identify the public space with parks and indoor destination facilities: shopping mall, theatre, opera, and Municipality buildings. “Public space means the place or the places where I spend time. Like the green space behind my apartment block.” Male, 55 years old. “The public spaces near my house are retail buildings: Plaza Mall, AFI Palace, Cora.” Ștefan, 26 years old “There is nothing I can use near my house, maybe just a parking lot.” Pavel, dentist The public is facing a real issue with the territorial-spatial-functional identification of the concrete public space. The preference for the typologies listed above comes from the fact that they can be clearly recognized as such: the park, the shopping mall, the cultural and commercial facilities are delimited, specific, but they are not a network - they are standalone destinations, without deviation. Additionally, these typologies which manage to meet the needs of a wide range of age groups and purposes of individual or collective use exclude vehicles and are excluded from the urban regularity, from a territorial perspective, as they involve other rules concerning their use and provide a non-urban perceptive comfort. The public space which prevails in the collective and individual mindset of the Bucharest inhabitants is an enclave, a retreat from the urban space. The street, the sidewalk, or the square are rarely mentioned, an indication that they are not associated with the need for interaction or relaxation, or with objectives or limits. “I feel we miss walking and going out just to relax.” Female, 45 years old. After 1990, the recovery of personal ownership of the private space led to an unassimilated implosion, with control and responsibility exclusively placed on the private space. In the western literature 71 Faculty of Architecture, Spiru Haret University Bucharest, course Professor Maria Duda. 72 Author: Maria Duda, coordinated by Professor Emil Barbu Popescu, defended during SD-SITT UAUIM in October 2014. 87 focused on theories on the public space, which is admired by most interviewees, the public space and the domestic space are part of an ongoing symbiotic mirroring relationship, a question-and-answer connection which balances the needs 73. In the local practice, public space is unofficially translated as a space of immediate individual poaching opportunities, an extension of the protection provided by the private space: occupy, reserve, fence, improvise facilities - even the official elements designed for comfort or protection turn into additional barriers. We are both witnesses and participants into public space turned territorial. The street, especially, is the space of our daily urban experience - which not only influences our behavior, but also strengthens our relationship with our city. Therefore, the component on the street as public space starts from the following questions: • Is the street recognized as public space (if not, why)? • If we accept that the street and especially the minor street network is completely ill- adapted even for cars, what causes this? • What are the reasons why the public administration, together with professionals, cannot remedy or at least improve a little the minor street network? • What is the relationship between the built-up space/ground floor space/private space and the street? • Who manages, designs and implements the street? • What would the ideal street look like for riverside residents/tourists/traders/pedestrians/young people/elderly/children/parents with children/deliverers/managers/artists/drivers/pet owners/joggers/women/blind people/hearing-impaired people/people with mobility impairments/cyclists/public transport drivers/firefighters/ambulances? • What are the theoretical models underpinning the understanding of the street as urban space and its role in the city? • What are the steps to take so as to turn a street into a comfortable public space? • How can we fight the private car culture and the idea that a parking lot is a right, not a privilege? • How can we build a common action language between the various professional fields in charge with the design of minor streets? • What are the main urban planning challenges Bucharest will have to face and what will be the role of the street infrastructure? • How can a street urban design system be adapted to current needs while maintaining the benefits of safety and efficiency of transport flows and encompassing the diversity of social use types and reconnecting the urban front (urban base)? The street in other specialist studies The Integrated Urban Development Plan (2011) and the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (2016) are substantiated by a strong analytical foundation consisting in traffic, accessibility and flow surveys focused on the three components - public transport, private transport and cyclists. Both plans point out the aggressiveness with which the street, in general, is taken by unlawful parking, which interfere with the pedestrian transit. The street is treated in both documents as a traffic instrument, enabling movement and following the traditional classifications based on the importance of the flow and on the area served. The street as public space is identified as a possibility only when the pedestrian flow exceeds all other components, 73 See Monteys, 2018. Public space is the collective dimension of domestic space 88 and this is conditioned by the introduction of new elements: small- and medium-sized parking lots in the central area (IUDP) and park and ride along the middle ring and regulated street parking (SUMP). IUDP proposed that 23 existing central streets should be turned into mainly pedestrian and bicycle lanes, to create a loop connecting the urban attractors north and south of Dâmbovița. The proposal includes the configuration of an integrated pedestrian and bicycle route network in a wider area of the central area, to provide not only traffic opportunities, but also quality public spaces. Moreover, the traffic context survey conducted for IUDP highlights various representative public spaces which require urban planning, urban design or architecture competitions, to produce viable solutions to the challenges identified. These are as follows: 1. Unirii Square; 2. Universității Square; 3. Revoluției Square; 4. Victoriei Square; 5. Națiunile Unite Square. Essentially, IUDP works with three types of projects: • Macro-scale projects, which require integration in municipal strategies. Land recycling projects and projects with a strong and representative component are particular cases; • Mezzo-scale projects, focused on completing the necessary infrastructure for the proper operation of the central area. This type of projects includes the integrated parking system, the newly built bridges and the re-design of the public transport terminals; • Finally, micro-scale projects, mainly dedicated to refurbishing public spaces, with cyclists and pedestrians as their target group. The table below presents the priorities proposed by IUDP: 89 Table 4. Priorities proposed by IUDP Priority Comments 1. Recovery This first priority is divided into five themes. 1.1 To recover the urban identity for The main idea behind this priority is a concept which involves the center of Bucharest the regeneration and reconnection of areas with different profiles which, together, create the center of Bucharest. 1.2 To recover the area South of This priority is inspired by the poor connections between the Dâmbovița and reconnect it to the southern part of the city and the central area. More specifically, center of Bucharest IUDP CZB intends to reconnect Calea Rahovei and Uranus street with the city center, along the newly built bridges, namely Mihai Bravu Bridge and Calea Rahovei Bridge. An additional benefit of such reconnections would be the increased visibility of Antim Monastery, of Bragadiru Palace and of Coșbuc Flower Market. 1.3 To recover Dâmbovița River and its The concept behind this priority is to turn the river banks major role in the central area between Unirii Square and Izvor Park into a promenade area. Moreover, this would boost the transformation of Splaiul Dâmboviței into a local street, thus changing its current status of arterial road. 1.4 To regenerate degraded traditional The main idea behind this priority derives from the fact that neighborhoods IUDP CZB cannot become involved in interventions on private property. Therefore, the only option available is to invest in infrastructure, in public spaces and in building business incubators and community centers, where possible. Three main areas benefit from this priority: Rahova–Uranus, Calea Moșilor Vechi and Grivița. This priority also involves projects to restore the built-up heritage. 1.5 To recover and restore the This priority stems from the previous one, by promoting the functionality of the built up stock by reconversion of historic buildings into business incubators and reconversion platforms, as well as a conversion into a social and cultural center.74 2. Traffic [Restructured and reintegrated This second priority is divided into three themes. urban fabric] 2.1 To eliminate transit traffic in the This priority supports, essentially, the idea to finalize the inner central area. and outer ring roads of the city. As for the Central Area of Bucharest, this priority favors the transformation of central arterial roads into local streets. 2.2 To develop an integrated system of Against the background of a high concentration of public small and medium-sized parking facilities which penetrate the city center, this priority supports lots the development of small- and medium-sized underground and above ground parking lots, not exceeding 500 parking spots. This system will be integrated with the public transport system and with the bicycle lane network proposed. 2.3 To encourage sustainable transport This priority recognizes the current trend which favors public means transport, cycling and walking instead of driving and, consequently, it supports the development of an integrated road 74 Located at 2 Blănari Street. 90 Priority Comments infrastructure system which should provide an attractive alternative to the use of personal vehicles. 3. Public spaces Similarly to the previous priority, the third priority is divided into three themes. 3.1 To promote the quality and This special priority is somewhat vague. Essentially, the idea is diversity of public spaces that an integrated parking system will contribute to saving public space, which, in turn, can be dedicated again to citizens and tourists, and become walking routes, leisure areas or playgrounds for children. 3.2 Streets and squares as friendly This priority focuses on the rehabilitation or modernization of 21 public spaces public spaces, starting from the idea that the current quality of most public spaces in Bucharest leaves quite a lot to be desired. 3.3 Representative public spaces This priority partially overlaps the previous. However, this special priority explicitly encourages the use of international urban planning, urban design and architecture competitions for the representative spaces in Bucharest. 7. Competitiveness Although rather general, this final priority essentially acknowledges that IUDP CZB serves as a strategic plan which target European Funds and viable private-public partnerships (PPPs). Source: IUDP CZB, 146ff. The implementation of the projects proposed under IUDP raises various questions, such as: Is it enough to select the streets based on traffic data and permeability surveys or there should be a detailed analysis of each street and of the network consisting in professionals and the community? Will the future management of the loop route depend on sector jurisdiction, the municipal administration or will it have a separate coordinator? How will it be connected to the adjacent network and background? Will such loop create a new limit? Nevertheless, so far IUDP still remains one of the very few surveys dedicated to the public space in the center of Bucharest. Figure 80 illustrates various interventions proposed for the central area. 91 Figure 80. Public space interventions proposed by IUDP Source: Feasibility studies, IUDP 92 On the other hand, SUMP provides theoretical street reorganization solutions for while maintaining the existing dimensions, with sidewalk parking spots reserved for various categories - residents, visitors, emergencies, delivery, users with disabilities. The recommendations also include that large arterial roads should turn into real boulevards, with a significant share allocated to non-motorized users, landscape works and better public transport accessibility. The plan also mentions the major shortcomings of street amenities for general accessibility (connections, extruded road markings, information panels, accommodated pedestrian crossings). However, the street surveys are limited to theoretical considerations, without an investigation and implementation methodology. SUMP also focuses on the public transport network (tramway, subway, buses and trolleybuses) which diminishes the importance of the urban public space. This is pointed out by Figure 81, which illustrates the share of investment in the public space versus other categories of investments proposed under SUMP. Thus, from the total EUR 7 billion, 3.5 billion will be invested to extend and modernize the subway (money provided mainly by the state budget and by European Funds), and the rest will go to projects developed by the local authorities for the surface public transport, traffic management, bicycle infrastructure etc. Of the 3.5 billion, 141 million will be invested in the development of new mainly pedestrian areas in the city center (pedestrian and mixed areas).75 However, the timeline for project implementation (2020) has passed. Figure 82 illustrates the areas which priorities non-motorized transport for 2020. Figure 81. Financial resources allocated for public spaces (red) versus other categories included in SUMP Bucharest. Source: SUMP (2016): 72. 75 See SUMP Bucharest, available at https://bit.ly/3c0yH2k [04.05.2020] 93 Figure 82. Areas which priorities non-motorized transport for 2020. Source: SUMP (2016): 75. 94 Area definition The street network in Bucharest, especially in the central area, where large urban planning projects (initiated in the 19th century and continued until 1989) overlap the original (organic) fabric of the city, is a specific model of traffic system and public space, consisting mainly in two superposed networks, with distinct features in terms of shape, scale and function. Most spatial conflicts (ranking/segmentation, correction/regulation, occupancy etc.) occurred in the street network and in the public space happen in this area, except for specific projects (plots, boulevards, gardens) which were not planned, but resulted after a permanent reconfiguration process. Consequently, the city center, as it is defined by the central ring, is the main area of interest for this study. The two traffic networks which build the street network of the central area are: • The major network consisting in main boulevards and arterial roads (which penetrate/cross the central area). This was partly built along the structure of the access roads to the city from the Phanariote Period and is partly generated by a multitude of urban systematization projects implemented between the end of the 19th century and 1989; • The minor network consisting in: The old organic fabric of the city in the Phanariote Period, partly rectified at the beginning of the 20th century and between the two World Wars. The new neighborhoods and lots in the central area, which appeared at the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century. The distribution fabric within the new neighborhoods built during the communist period (Vitan neighborhood). The scale of the minor network streets is domestic, intimate, and suitable to its mainly residential purposes. The architectural typologies we encounter most often in the secondary network (house, villa, rental buildings) did not include sidewalk businesses which could activate the street and provide for the needs of local consumers. As a response, after 1989 many buildings in the central area changed their function and turned into minimarkets, boutique stores, restaurants, bars etc., acting as local and city- wide urban attractors and introducing a new layer of street users. At the same time, some villas were turned into office buildings, while the fabric resulted from vacant land or demolished buildings was occupied by new collective residential buildings or by office buildings which attracted new layers of users and visitors. The densification processes in the central area, quite natural given the level of amenities and the value of the buildings, is supported by this minor network, with its specific spatiality, with the multiplication and overlapping of flows and processes. The topological configuration of the minor network (which was neither planned nor designed), the organic shape with variable profile and alternating dynamic spaces (street, alley) and static spaces (small square, largo), combined with contemporary use practices (occupancy, territorialization, fragmentation) turn the central minor street into an ideal laboratory to identify mediation and management tools for the urban processes which are transforming the public space from the central area. From the multitude of streets which build the minor network of the road system, we selected an area which includes (ideally) a richness of features in terms of shape, function, use, management. 95 Area of study: The Creative Neighborhood - Prelungirea Dacia, Mircea Vulcănescu, Știrbei Vodă, Popa Tatu, Calea Victoriei Pilot area: Crossroads of Prelungirea Dacia, Calea Griviței, Mircea Vulcănescu, Theodor Aman. Figure 83. Minor streets network in the area of study Source: The authors. The major streets network in the central area of Bucharest, superimposed on the minor network and on the area of study, illustrates the main north-south and east-west crossings with boulevards and arterial roads developed between 1870 and 1989. 96 Figure 84. Major streets network in the area of study. Source: The authors. 97 Figure 85. Pedestrian infrastructure projects in the central area and in the pilot area analyzed Source: Adapted after SUMP, IUDP, JICA In Figure 85 we chose to represent the pedestrian infrastructure projects proposed in three of the major strategies of the capital, and their integration in the pilot area analyzed: JICA (Extended Urban Transport Plan in Bucharest City and its metropolitan area, drafted by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency in 1999), SUMP (Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan, developed in 2016) and IUDP (Integrated Urban Development Plan, developed in 2010). The picture also details the current project implementation stage 0 = compromised, 5 = implemented). Beyond the obvious option to integrate these projects in the central area, the major benefit of the analysis and of the intervention model proposed is the possibility to extend the approach to the entire minor streets network included within the central ring. 98 Current street model and the actual condition of the street, as public space The model of a typical street involves lawful pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks and vehicles traffic on the carriageways. Parking is only allowed in parking lots or where there are signs allowing parking on the sidewalk. The pedestrian and vehicle flows are uninterrupted, and the street is a space which is generally used for various transport means. Bicycles and scooters are considered vehicles and use the carriageway. Figure 86 illustrates this street structure, which could be considered ideal or at least in line with the regulations in force and with the transit street model. However, the reality is quite different: The documents which regulate the street structure are not very comprehensive. The law on public domain use, the road traffic code, the standard rules on street design and planning are brief and highly technical, therefore they do not consider the cultural forces which act in this space, the evolution of the vehicle market and the increase in the number of personal cars, the micro-mobility, the carriageway damages, the exceptions and the unpredicted circumstances which have become almost as important as normalcy in Bucharest. Therefore, there seems to be a radical difference between model and reality. If the ideal model of the transit street (see Figure 86) relies on the development of a profile which is further extended along the road axis, in reality, the street profile and the flow distribution never have a fluid or predictable evolution along the road axis (see Figure 87). Thus, we identified the following sequence of mutations of the original model: 1. Very high number of personal vehicles. Free parking on the sidewalk margins which is a well- known traffic booster in the central area; Without clear regulations and in a climate of political and regulatory tolerance, drivers decide for themselves where they are allowed to park or not. Soon, the two-lane street becomes a one-way street. The legislation often follows such changes and the street officially becomes a one-way street. Drivers park on both sides. The right sidewalk is protected by balusters, so it remains relatively accessible. On the left, drivers park with two wheels on the sidewalk. Parked vehicles are not aligned. Often, drivers prefer to take cautions with an already crowded street and park as close as possible to the sidewalk axis, leaving less than one meter for pedestrians. All these actions turn the sidewalk into an interrupted and useless area for pedestrians. The lack of distinction between various parking options leads to extreme adaptations. The most common such adaptation is the example of delivery vehicles which park perpendicular on the sidewalk, in front of the access gate (usually free). Consequently, they completely block the sidewalk and pose a significant inconvenience for carriageway; Therefore, the carriageway begins to be used jointly by vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, scooters etc. This becomes a tolerated shared space (which is wonderful) but not regulated, and this leads to conflicts and to unsafe pedestrian traffic. There are various other situations which fragment and disturb even more the traffic flows. Some of the balusters were removed or damaged to allow for more parking space for a construction site which uses the sidewalk for its own purposes. Therefore, the sidewalk on the right is interrupted for a period of at least 6 months; This has a negative impact on a retail building on that street. With intense traffic, this information intention turns into an obstacle; Finally, there is no correlation or synchronization at the level of street mobility or installation of new equipment for the public domain. The public lightning system, the traffic signs, the public amenities - all have placement rules and recommended distances, but only within their own system. 99 Simple space planning details can generate roadblocks, especially when they add to the situations detailed above. The trash cans, the access ramps to institutions, the ubiquitous air conditioning units sometimes take the precious remaining space. Figure 86. Transit street model (parallel, uninterrupted flows) - 1 Source: The authors. Figure 87. Field reality. Pictor Theodor Aman Street, Sector 1 - 2 Source: The authors. Figure 88. Realistic image of a pedestrian flow - 3 Source: The authors. R - refuge from vehicle, B - impossible sidewalk access (continue walking on the carriageway), A - extreme strategy. Access to the sidewalk is blocked, but the couple lift the pram with the baby, to pass by the bollard. They reach the sidewalk, only to discover that their way is blocked again. 100 Description of analytic tools In order to approach the street from the viewpoint of public space in the city center, we propose the following sequence of conceptual tools aimed at data collection and especially at the development of a theoretical and operational framework to rethink the way in which the street space is regulated and, eventually, used. Mass-to-void analysis (Nolli analysis) The Nolli analysis aims at representing the public space of the city as if it were a single vast indoor area. The criterion for analysis is very simple - all public spaces, whether streets, squares, institutions, religious edifices or others are rendered as empty (white) and private property is rendered as full (black). This type of analysis builds on the idea that the city is first of all built shape, space, and place. With time, this type of analysis has been used (the figure-ground analysis) only for built-up space and infrastructure plans. Usually, only buildings/ built-up private mass is considered as “full”. Nevertheless, we get back to the essence of this analytic instrument - accessibility - and we propose to use it in the central area of Bucharest with the following addition: we include in the permanent objects all landmarks which are perceived as permanent in the street use: • Cars/vehicles either parked or driving; • Vegetation; • Other elements blocking pedestrian flows (trash cans, public amenities etc.) The figure below illustrates accessibility in Bucharest. 101 Figure 89. Nolli Map for the pilot area Source: The authors. 102 Figure 90 Types of parking lots in the pilot area Source: The authors. 103 Figure 91 Distribution of types of parking lots in the pilot area Source: The authors. From the distribution of parking lots in the pilot area and form the Nolli analysis we can draw the following conclusions which are relevant for this analysis: • There are no parking lots on private space. More precisely, the public space fully took over the role of parking space, to the detriment of other specific uses of a quality public space; • Almost all vehicles are parked unlawfully; Nevertheless, the current status quo seems to be rather unanimously and implicitly accepted, therefore we may speak of the paradox of illegal but allowed parking; • The solution for this situation requires coherent regulation and openness of public policies towards private parking lots which, in a relatively short period of time, can become a real development trigger for the neighborhood due to the dynamics they generate. The third space The third space is the result of legal and administrative ambiguities in Bucharest and the best starting point for a street reorganization attempt. The concept describes the space which is not used for pedestrian, vehicle or other types of traffic. Usually, this space is defined as having a “stationary function”. In Bucharest, however, this definition is neither appropriate nor accurate. When we speak of the stationary function of the public space, we mean something which is known in size, legally determined and administratively monitored. The third space occurs during daytime and disappears at night, specifically due to the lack of a clear legal definition. It also expands from one year to another. The third space is probably the most important lesson of the street dynamics and the starting point we propose to rethink the street organization in Bucharest. Its importance is as follows: in the past years, the excessive and aggressive parking and the other street uses gradually reduced the carriage way. Chaotic and excessive parking became a method to observe and measure accurately how much 104 of the street space should be used for vehicle traffic and how much should remain a vague space, which can be used flexibly, for pedestrian or other purposes (see Figure 93 and Figure 94). This space is mostly occupied by sidewalk parking and by other objects: guard booths, toilets, public amenities, street furniture, trash cans etc. The third space is also a space of freedom and improvisation. It is a place where people undertake multiple actions to co-create the street space, described in Figure 95: they invent methods to become close and communicate; they become territorial; they negotiate; they compete; they are brave / fair; they use street metalanguage; All these processes are related to a flat structure - `a disorganized type of lots, therefore all participants in the street relate based on the idea that each entity, whether mobile or stationary (vehicle, pedestrian, bicyclist), occupy a street portion. Figure 95 supports the idea that the street is rather a series spatial sequences which succeed one another almost as rooms, and not just the space accommodating various flows. This is a space of interactions, of squeezing in, of interruptions. The shape takes minor changes from one day to another but, in general, it moves further and further in the territory adjudicated from mobility. Conquered almost completely, the pedestrian mobility territory merged with the vehicle mobility space. This way, a significant part of the secondary streets of the city now operate as unofficial shared spaces, therefore they are dangerous and extremely uncomfortable for pedestrians. A peculiarity of the third space is the idea of permanence of a street object. Usually, any permanent street element means a well-grounded foundation. Poles, trash cans, street furniture, even billboards are on the verge of permanence, and vehicles are mobile elements. However, the wall of vehicles currently parked has the permanence of a street front, of an architectural object. This street map as occupied space or as disorganized plot is the conceptual foundation of the third space concept, and especially the means to turn this notion into a street space modelling tool, in the chapter on strategic proposals. 105 Figure 92 Representation of the third space in the pilot area Source: The authors. 106 Figure 93. Representation “third space” - 1 Figure 94. Delimitation of the third space according to the street reality - 2 Figure 95. Current street use practices - 3 Figure 96. Rudiments of street plots - 4 Source: The authors. 107 Figure 97. Third space surface in the pilot area Source: The authors. Therefore, the third space, as described in Figure 93, is: In the short term: • A flexible territory one can work with to balance the urban mobility equation. An essential point in the minor street network regeneration project is the focus on micro-projects, which can be quickly implemented, with small budgets. The micro-intervention projects are also known as urban acupuncture projects or tactical urbanism. One of the most renowned definitions of the tactical urbanism is: A deliberate, phased approach to instigating change; An offering of local ideas for local planning challenges; Short-term commitment and realistic expectations; Low risks, with possibly a high reward; The development of social capital between citizens, and the building of organizational capacity between public/private institutions, non-profit/ NGOs, and their constituents.76 The importance of micro-interventions in planning is as follows: • Quick solutions for urgent and punctual problems; • Communication and education of the public, right there, in the street; • Prototypes for new cooperation models between different professionals, administration and the private sector; • Data gathering and testing of design principles – to determine a feedback-loop in the planning process. The micro-projects or the easy wins stage is usually considered a short-term stage, which has a role in winning over the public trust. For the next strategic planning period we propose that the micro- intervention tool and the easy wins stage within the management project should be regarded as main elements of the planning process. In order to actually achieve this objective, we need to connect the idea of micro-intervention with the overall picture. This cannot be done traditionally, hierarchically, but it requires the introduction of a 76Lydon, Mike, Dan Bartman, Ronald Woudstra and Aurash Khawarzad, Tactical Urbanism: Short-term action Long-term change (Vol. 1), New York City: The Street Plans Collaborative, 2011. 108 horizontal sequence of micro-interventions. This sequence will set the premises for a network plan, instead of a pyramidal plan. The most important aspect of this network plan is the need to develop a standalone institution to include members of the administration, professionals and representatives of the private sector and of the civil society, with territorial structure and democratic decision-making mechanisms. Strategic intervention lines: 1. To define and legalese the possibility to rent carriageway currently used as parking lots, for commercial or personal purposes; To introduce a legal instrument to enable the differentiated use of minor streets (e.g., vehicle mobility during the week/pedestrian space during weekends); To create a budgetary instrument solely for works of art, for the purpose of raising awareness on public space issues. In the medium term: • Useful to gradually begin the reduction of the number of vehicles driving in the central area, to invent and test public policy elements which support small traders. In the medium term, it is important to support the inclusive mobility ranking strategies, to ensure accessibility to public space, to enhance pedestrian use of streets, to build a relationship between administration, professionals and citizens, to provide institutional support for the local community involvement in decision-making processes, to support local businesses and to establish a relationship with real estate developers. Consequently, the main medium-term objective is to develop and fine-tune an integrated planning- and-management instrument. We can already indicate various policies and projects which will be implemented due to this instrument, but the main objective remains to create a flexible administrative tool, which is open to new solutions or ideas. This instrument is called here street plots or the third space. As working tools, the project targets two major objectives: To delimitate and regulate the entire street space which can be used for parking or other purposes (third space regulation). The purpose of this action is to create a plot between the minimum area reserved for pedestrian traffic (1 m from the alignment) and the minim vehicle traffic area. This plot will be monitored and managed in real time and its main function will be parking, but the “lots” can be rented for other purposes as well. The plot will be connected to an electronic management system and will enable various actions, such as dynamic adjustment of parking prices, dynamic adjustment of the vehicle/pedestrian ratio and fostering the local trade and businesses which depend on a good relationship with the street space; Initiate a process to reduce the number of parking spots in the central area and, implicitly, to dissuade traffic in the central area. This process should be implemented in parallel with the development of public transport and especially as means to support and incentivize citizens to use public transport. This objective can be achieved by gradual and differentiated increases in the street parking price. The street parking price and subscriptions should be carefully correlated with the legislation on new real estate developments - the conditions on minimum parking spots are a well-known instrument to encourage or dissuade constructions, especially residential constructions. 109 Figure 98. Street planning scenario resulted after the implementation of the instruments proposed Source: The authors. 110 In the long-term: • Useful to adapt the city to the mobility revolution which will explode with the changes to the personal vehicle and with the adoption of a variety of city mobility options (electric cars, self- driving cars, micro-mobility etc.) The traffic will not become more fluid if secondary streets are freed. The idea to free up as much street space as possible to make room for even more cars is now known to be completely wrong and is called induced demand.77 Most likely, the uniform strangulation of streets is one way of reducing the speed, therefore the traffic congestion. The long-term stage which covers the entire planning horizon 2050 is somewhat beyond the timeline by which this project can propose clear objectives and actions. Nevertheless, in the long run, it is expected that the integrated planning-and-management instrument called here the “third space plot” proposed by the street plot should find its usefulness in mediating the major changes which will occur in the field of urban mobility: • The radical change of the idea of personal vehicle, the spread of the electric and self-driven cars; • The diversification and fragmentation of means of transport (note here the importance of micro-mobility); • The development and implementation of projects and policies to address the climate change and public health. 5.1.2.5. Surface spaces By and large, this study identifies the surface spaces with the wide green spaces which form the basic structure of the city landscape. They should complement the streets and squares. When we speak of the life of a city, they are a green oasis for leisure, relaxation and positive energy. Their appearance should reflect these basic principles.78 Parks and green spaces should be perceived as basic parts of the urban ecosystem. They should function as part of a green infrastructure. Moreover, these green areas can become part of a decentralized rainwater drainage system. The interventions proposed should not have an adverse impact on the existing natural setting, and the design process should consider the seasonality and the landscape changes along the year. In a city, parks can also take the shape of green pockets and can be used as elements of composition in the urban structure (yards, areas around individual buildings and park-like squares). Here, urban elements can be more massive, and architectural ideas - bolder. In the historical parks, the quality should be assessed with the landscape, the connections and the history, and the initial design concept should also be considered. The delimitation is also important. The delimitation between the park and the surrounding buildings should also be clear and well defined. A park should attract visitors, not seem difficult to reach. Nowadays, in order to maintain their attractiveness and to encourage outdoor activities it is desirable to create various leisure spaces, sports fields, playgrounds, elements connected with water, cafes etc. within the parks. 77 Available at https://bit.ly/2QZ3zaT [30.03.2020] 78 See Chirilă et al., 2020: 31. 111 Figure 99 reflects the distribution of surface spaces. Mention should be made that this analysis is not exclusively dedicated to green spaces. The analysis highlights the large parks in Bucharest with public access which enable recreation and leisure activities. Consequently, we decided to eliminate from our analysis the western part of Băneasa Forest, which currently does not meet the requirements for public space (no access to the green area). The image below enables the following conclusions: 1. Compared to the surface of the city, there are very few large spaces dedicated to outdoor spare time activities; 2. Most large green spaces are located within or around large residential ensembles built before 1990. The periphery is very poorly served by green spaces. In the context of the new real estate developments in these areas, the Municipality will have to design mechanisms to rebuild the land stock or to negotiate with private investors, so that these new neighborhoods benefit from the specific amenities of a quality residential ensemble; 3. The existing green spaces do not amount for a unitary network. This can be achieved by creating larger green corridors along the boulevards which connect these parks; 4. The relationship with water is rather poorly valorized, both in the central area (Dâmbovița) and in the north area (the chain of lakes). Sector 2 is the exception from the rule, as it has managed to develop some of the areas tangent to the Colentina River in the past years. However, most water banks are still not accommodated or accessible to the public. Recent individual housing developments along the water have compromised access to significant parts of the lake banks. In order to valorize the lake banks to their true potential, there is a need for active efforts in partnership with the neighboring administrative-territorial units (ATUs). 112 Figure 99. Distribution of surface spaces Source: The authors. Table 5. Statistical data for surface spaces in Bucharest City Number of spaces identified 38, of which 68% are spaces of local importance and 32% are representative spaces Total surface 1,238 ha Amplitude From 9578 m2 to 379.56 m2 Arithmetic mean 325,951 m2 Median 95,918 m2 Standard deviation 694,186 Source: The authors. 113 Figure 100. Distribution of surface spaces, by sector Distribuția suprafețelor aferente spațiilor de tip suprafață, pe sectoare Sectorul 6 5% Sectorul 5 1% Sectorul 4 Sectorul 1 29% 45% Sectorul 3 11% Sectorul 2 9% Sectorul 1 Sectorul 2 Sectorul 3 Sectorul 4 Sectorul 5 Sectorul 6 Source: The authors. The distribution (%) of surface spaces by sector indicates, as reflected by Figure 100, that Sector 5 and Sector 6 have the fewest large spaces dedicated to spare time activities. Although Sector 1 accounts for an important share of the large surface spaces, compared to other districts, we note here are vast spaces along Colentina River which are not valorized. Also, Sector 4 could rely much more in the future on the Văcărești Delta, which currently is not sufficiently valorized and promoted. In Sector 2, Sector 5 and Sector 6, alternative solutions to satisfy the leisure needs of the inhabitants could be designed. For example, new point-like public spaces could be created or re-organized, distributed as a coherent network across the entire sector. There is a still relatively high number of surface spaces which need rehabilitation or which could host several relaxation and leisure functions; architectural and urban planning competitions could be organized for this purpose. Some of these spaces are already undergoing a rehabilitation process, therefore, it is highly important that such efforts should be completed and finalized in the future. The spaces identified for each sector are as follows: Bazilescu Park (Sector 1), Motodrom Park, Sticlăriei Park and Verdi Park (Sector 2)79, Constantin Brâncuși Park, Unirii Park80, Swimming Pool Cara-Titan (Sector 3), Văcărești Nature Park (Sector 4), Centenarului Park, Romniceanu Park, Izvor Park (Sector 5) and the Lacul Morii Island and Grozăvești Park (Sector 6)81. In the image below we chose to represent the surface spaces, classified according to population accessibility on a 10-minute walk distance. The surfaces which serve the largest part of the population are represented by the large parks in the proximity of socialist residential ensembles (Balta Albă – Titan, Drumul Taberei, and Tineretului). Except for the Văcărești Nature Park, these spaces are relatively well maintained, with a satisfactory level of leisure amenities. On the other hand, the spaces listed above, mainly located tangent to individual housing islands, although they serve a smaller population, require immediate rehabilitation interventions. Such an approach would contribute to maintaining a relatively balanced network of quality green spaces which after the gradual addition of new parks, new routes and connecting green corridors, could provide satisfactory services for a larger share of the Bucharest population. 79 Available at https://bit.ly/3cbVcAy [30.03.2020] 80 Available at https://bit.ly/3d9NOHv [30.03.2020] 81 Available at https://bit.ly/2ZGvAJL [30.03.2020] 114 Figure 101. Parks which need rehabilitation and population served over a 10-minute walk distance Source: The authors. Also, Bucharest still has significant land reserves that allow it to develop further. There are approximately 1,523 hectares of abandoned or derelict industrial areas, which could be subject to a functional conversion process, together with approximately 2,984 hectares of undeveloped land. The largest land reserves which could be developed are located at the Southern periphery. It is here where the lack of green areas is also most visible (especially in Sector 5), as well as the lack of amenities and the lack of jobs. Therefore, it is important that when planning land reserve use82, green spaces and the introduction of functions other than housing should be prioritized. The image below reflects the 82 Although most lands at the periphery are privately owned, it is important that the Municipality undertakes expropriations for the strategic areas of the city which could have a significant contribution to the development of a coherent network of larger green spaces for the Bucharest-Ilfov area. 115 “greenfield”83 and the “brownfield”84 land reserves of Bucharest and new parks proposed by the SECTOR PUZs, superimposed on these areas. Figure 102. Main land reserves of Bucharest and the new parks proposed by the sector PUZs Source: The authors. 83 Greenfield sites are lands unencumbered by constructions, with economic growth potential, most often not served by the technical and municipal networks, mainly located at the city periphery. 84 Brownfield sites are abandoned or underused spaces, which are not valorised at their outmost economic potential. Most often, they are located in partly or fully developed urban areas. They include vacant land and buildings, fully or partly occupied, whose conversion can be constrained to a certain extent by physical or regulatory issues. 116 6 REAL ESTATE ANALYSIS: RESULTS The real estate analysis intends to provide an overall picture on the main stages of the city transformation and development, in the light of the real estate market evolution as a result of the real estate expansion and decline after 2008: • To enable the identification of attractiveness areas and of the reasons for their attractiveness; • Possible further development trends; • To highlight areas with yet unexplored potential, where locations considered inaccessible or unsafe can become interesting due to demographic changes or to the opportunities provided by land resources or future infrastructure projects; • To identify opportunities for the public sector, either to invest or to focus its efforts to attract investors or foreign funds, for example, by flagship urban renewal or regeneration projects or by providing employee accommodation for much-needed workforce. Unlike a real estate analysis conducted for the private sector, this analysis for the public sector is performed: • To better understand the housing demand in the city or in the metropolitan area; • To identify the demand for affordable/social housing; • To identify possible locations when building of new housing facilities should be encouraged; • To increase the capacity and to develop the utility network; • To develop new public amenities or services in newly-built areas; • To determine possible effects of new commercial developments on the traffic; • To substantiate the increase of the taxable base; • To identify the need to develop multimodal points; • To create a database on the housing stock, prices, rent, vacant land which could be used when potential investors intend to bring their business in the city; • To create a portfolio of ranked projects/investments in facilities and infrastructure to attract tourists and other visitors etc. 6.1 The real estate market in the European Union (EU) The real estate market, as a product, is directly impacted by the changes in the economic markets, as they are interconnected and influence the stability of the economic microclimate, even though they occur in different geographic areas. The economic openness of the European Union and the globalization, which enabled large investors to choose their investment markets, have created a number of subtle and strong links at the same time, both within the European Union and internationally. Within this system, the Romanian real estate market, in general, and the Bucharest real estate market, in particular, start to define their role and potential. 6.1.1 Residential market The analysis of the house price index, aggregated at European Union level for 2007-2019 indicates that a defining factor for the entire real estate market is the continuing price increase, which has been reported since 2014. At the European Union level, the annual growth rate of the house price index registered a peak in the first quarter of 2007, + 10%, and a bottom value in the second quarter of 2009, -6.0% 117 Figure 103. House Price Index: Euro area and EU aggregates; annual growth rate Source: Adaptation of Eurostat data. Overall, the house prices increased in the European Union, with the exception of Italy, where prices diminished constantly since the beginning of the financial crisis.85 The average annual increase in house prices in the EU was 5% in the past three years. House prices in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and Portugal increased twice as fast as the EU average.86 With time, compared to the Western Europe, house prices in the Central and Eastern Europe were lower, but this difference starts to fade, due to the opportunities provided by these markets (qualified and less costly workforce, and a more significant and faster return on investment), which have become more and more attractive for investors. Unlike her neighbors, Romania has registered a slower price increase pace, above the European Union and Euro Area average (118%), and in the first quarter of 2019 was above the average reported for countries like the UK, Sweden or France. Another residential market indicator analyzed at European Union level is related to the housing stock age - house prices differ by construction year. The figure below indicates the share of new housing in the total housing for the second semester of 2019. Again, developing countries like Cyprus or Malta report the highest values (more than 50% of the housing stock), with the lowest values reported in countries like Denmark or Slovenia; Romania records a 20% share of new housing in the total housing, with similar shares reported by Germany, Ireland or Portugal. Figure 104. House Price Index: evolution 2014 Q1 – 2019 Q2 Source: Adaptation of Eurostat data. The evolution of the purchase price for new houses, as reflected by the statistical analysis at European Union level, supports the previous conclusion: the highest purchase price was reported by Cyprus and Malta, while Romania was placed in the lower half of the ranking. 85 Property Index Overview of European Residential Markets Where does residential price growth end? 8th edition, July 2019 86 See ibid. 118 Figure 105. Distribution of new and existing housing in total housing, 201987 Source: Adaptation of Eurostat data. Figure 106. Average price per square meter of an apartment in the main European cities, 1st Semester 2019 Source: Adapted after https://bit.ly/3bDtAnT (December 2020) and own calculation. The breakdown by residential area, for the urban environment still shows that the highest value of the average price per square meter for apartments is registered in London (approximately EUR 16,500/sqm), followed by Geneva, Zurich, Luxembourg (with average prices per square meter exceeding EUR 10,000). In an analysis covering more than 60 cities, Bucharest ranks lowest in terms of average price per square meter for apartments, with values 12 times lower than the peak value reported for London. Although the analysis is interesting in terms of real estate value, another important aspect which should not be overlooked in the analysis of this indicator is its correlation with the purchase power, the average wage and the interest rates. 87 New housing means housing delivered the current year (new stock versus existing stock). 119 Figure 107. Average monthly rental cost for a 2-room apartment (utilities included) in the main European cities in 2018 (calculated by: www.statista.com) Source: Adapted after https://www.statista.com/statistics/1052000/cost-of-apartments-in-europe-by-city/. In the analysis of average rental value, the ranking changes slightly, with Paris reporting the highest average monthly rent of almost EUR 2,500/month, followed by London, with an approximate value of EUR 2,150 per month, then Luxembourg and Geneva. The differences are more visible for the Western Europe cities versus Eastern Europe cities, with most average monthly rent values below EUR 1,000 for the latter. One of the main factors which maintain the high average monthly rent values in the Western European cities is the demand which exceeds the supply. The relocation of professionals in top cities, supported by a low rate of available housing and high construction costs, all contribute to increasing the rent value. Another aspect which can be inferred beyond the rankings analyzed in the previous figures is related to the citizen access to housing, as a fundamental right. This is a very important topic at European Union level, and the latest Eurobarometer on the satisfaction with the ability to find affordable housing revealed the following aspects: most inhabitants in the main cities analyzed state they are satisfied / somewhat satisfied (equal percentages or exceeding 50%), as they can easily find affordable housing; more than 30% of the inhabitants of strong and active economic areas, where wage levels exceed the European Union average (like Zurich, Glasgow, Belfast, Antalya, Ljubljana, Vienna, Luxembourg, Munich, Rennes, Copenhagen) and are supported by good housing policies - state they are very satisfied with the ability to find affordable housing. Conversely, the inhabitants of Athens (29%), Istanbul (28%) and Valletta (25%) state they are not at all satisfied. For Romania, for the 3 cities analyzed: Piatra Neamț, Cluj-Napoca and Bucharest - the highest share of respondents (between 46% and 55%) state they are somewhat satisfied with their ability to find affordable housing. A more detailed analysis of the access to housing in Bucharest will be provided later on in this document. 120 Figure 108. Ability to find affordable housing in EU capital cities (Answer to the question: Is it easy to find adequate housing at affordable prices?) Source: Adapted after Eurobarometer 2015 - ttps://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S1035_366. The report The State of the Housing in EU 2019 indicates that the European Union is still facing a housing crisis (already manifest in 2015) due to the fact that although this is clearly a structural problem, it continues to be addressed by decision-makers with a patchwork of, often costly, policy solutions. Although statistical data show that in 2017, 10.2% of households in the EU spent over 40% of their disposable income on housing costs, but this share increases to 37.8% when considering households at risk of poverty. By property type, the largest share of population spending more than 40% of their income were the tenants (who rent at market price) - 26.3%; owners or owners with a mortgage or loan were less affected (almost 5%). Figure 109. Distribution of population by tenure status in 2017 Source: Adaptation of Eurostat data. 121 More than half of the EU population lived in owner-occupied dwellings in 2018, ranging from 51.4 % in Germany up to 96.8 % in Romania (where the high share of owners is favored by the access to mortgage loans and most often the rent/monthly instalment ratio is equivalent, therefore it is much more advantageous for a person to save money for the mortgage loan advance payment than to pay rent; however, this trend might be reversed due to the volatility of the workforce which is willing to move frequently for better wages, more facilities etc.). Switzerland was still an exception, as the proportion of people who lived in rented dwellings outweighed those living in owner-occupied dwellings, as some 57.5 % of the population were tenants. The Western European countries with the highest shares of population represented by owners with a mortgage or loan were the Netherlands (60.7%), Sweden (52.2%), Iceland (63.9%, data for 2016) and Norway (60.5%). Another relevant aspect for the housing analysis is given by one of the key dimensions in assessing the quality of housing, more specifically the availability of sufficient and adequate space in a dwelling. The overcrowding rate describes the proportion of people living in an overcrowded dwelling, as defined by the number of rooms available to the household, the household’s size, as well as its members’ ages and their family situation88. The highest overcrowding rate among the EU Member States was registered in Romania (46.3 %), a rate which is comparable with non-EU states: Serbia (56.2%), North Macedonia (46.3%) and Turkey (43.7%). Cyprus and Ireland (2.8% each), Malta (3.0%), the United Kingdom (3.4%) and the Netherlands (4.1%) registered the lowest rates of overcrowding, while other 8 EU member states, as well as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland reported less than 10.0% of their respective populations living in overcrowded dwellings. 6.1.2 Office market Total investment volume89 in the European market reaches EUR 261 billion in 2018, at the same level as those of 2017. In fact, investments consolidated in the largest 16 cities, the main markets at European level, registering 10% increase and reaching EUR 100 billion, as the office spaces remain the most wanted assets. Office spaces accounted for 45% of the volumes invested in Europe and were part of the mega-transactions performed. According to the analysists in the field, it is expected that despite an economic slowdown at the European Union level, the office market in 2019 will be stable, due to the increase of prime rental values, with a decrease of vacant offices and increasing demand.90 The office market is strongly influenced by the economic stability of a country and especially of a region or city, as main providers of office spaces at national level. According to Cushman & Wakefield reports91, there is a very strong correlation between GDP and CRE (Commercial Real Estate - indicator of investment profitability through the revenue yield), so each percentage point of GDP growth resulted in a net absorption of 2.8 million square meters in office spaces, annually, in the EURO area. Although a slowdown of the economic growth is expected, certain markets will still perform and the focus will be now not only on the main cities like London, Paris or Amsterdam, but on cities which are about to strengthen their activity, such as Lisbon, Vienna etc. 88 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Housing_statistics#Type_of_dwelling 89 https://www.realestate.bnpparibas.com/european-office-market-2019-edition 90 https://www.realestate.bnpparibas.com/european-office-market-2019-overview 91http://www.cushmanwakefield.com/~/media/global- reports/2018/Europe%20Economic%20CRE%20Outlook%20September%202018.pdf?_ga=2.181951975.1393579310.15514 58187-128360525.1551458187 122 Figure 110. The most active 10 European markets, C4 2017 - Q3 2018, billion EUR Source: Data processed from the report PWC emerging trends in real estate Europe, 2019. All specialist reports92 confirm the same: the office market in Europe flourished, registering an increase in the total sqm for offices in 2018 almost at the same level as 2017 (by far the most active year in the decade) and with an estimate of 9.2 sqm for the end of 2019 93 (decrease compared to 2018). Figure 111. Take-up rate for office spaces 2018, 2017 and 2016 Source: Adapted data from https://www.realestate.bnpparibas.com/european-office-market-2019-edition. The lack of available space in attractive areas (like Amsterdam, London or Paris) led to a new focus on marginal markets, where investors mainly seek refurbishment, relocation or sale opportunities, with a focus on flexible and co-working spaces (especially in the creative industries or IT). 2019 was another 92 https://www.realestate.bnpparibas.com/european-office-market-2019-edition 93 http://europe-re.com/european-office-take-up-to-reach-9-2-million-m-by-the-end-of-2019/67253 123 boom year for flexible office spaces across Europe, with 687.000 sqm of office spaces rented in the first quarter, 15% above the equivalent level in the same period of 2018. Figure 112. Office market in Europe - vacancy rate of prime office spaces (2018 and 2016) Source: Adapted data from https://www.realestate.bnpparibas.com/european-office-market-2019-edition. The average vacancy rate for office spaces decreased again in Europe in 2018 and probably reached it floor level in several markets. The German markets still displayed the lowest vacancy rates, especially Berlin (with 1.7% representing only 327.000 sqm) and Munich with 2.3%; Luxemburg (with 3.7% vacancy rate) was close to the German markets level. The vacancy rated dropped especially in Amsterdam (-310 bps) and Warsaw (-340 bps). The share of vacant spaces decreased in all other markets, such as Paris (-100 bps), London (-120 bps), Milano (-110 bps) and Dublin (-170 bps). The average rate of office space vacancy in Bucharest registered a historical low in 2018 of about 6.6%, compared to 9.2% at the end of 2017, according to JLL Romania94. 94https://www.wall-street.ro/articol/Real-Estate/238728/jll-romania-rata-medie-de-neocupare-la-spatii-de-birouri- cresterea-chiriilor.html#gref și EMEA Office Rents Q1 2019, Colliers International 124 Figure 113. Prime rental value for office spaces in Europe, S2 2019 Source: Data adapted from EMEA Office Rents S2 2019, Colliers International. The prime rental values remained constant or increased in all main European markets, except for London (-2% at the end of 2018) where prime rental values reached 1.211 GBP/m2/an. Madrid (+13%, 432 €/m2/year) registered the most significant increase in the rental values. Other significant increases were reported Hamburg, Berlin (+9%), Milan and Frankfurt (+7%). For Bucharest, prime rental values were maintained for five consecutive years at 18.5 €/m2/month, according to JLL Romania Colliers International.95 6.2 Real estate market in Central and Eastern European capital cities As regards the previous analysis, a more relevant comparison for the analysis of the real estate market in Bucharest would be with Central and Eastern European Capital Cities, as comparisons with the main European real estate markets (like Vienna or Amsterdam) are rather aspirational at the moment. The Western and Eastern Europe real estate markets are two completely different markets which developed along different historical evolutions and pathways which comprise different characteristics and dynamics. Thus, for the comparative analysis of the real estate market in Bucharest we selected the following Central and Eastern Europe cities: Warsaw, Prague, Sofia and Budapest. Moreover, an analysis of these cities proves interesting in light of the strong economic performance of the entire region, which gained investors’ attention, with transactions in the CEE - 5 area (Romania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria) exceeding EUR 13.1 billion in 201896. Investments increased compared to 2017 and set a new record for another consecutive year; the same trend was manifest in the second half of 2019, exceeding the investment transaction volumes reported for the same period of 201897. Investments in office spaces continues to rank highest, as this proved to be one of the most profitable sectors, followed by industrial and logistics spaces, due to the consolidation of the economies of the 95More information available at: https://bit.ly/2z7BvfZ (December 2020). 96 See Global Investment Atlas 2019, Cushman & Wakefield, 2019 97 See What’s up CEE? All you need to know about real estate in CEE, BNP Parisbas 2019. 125 countries analyzed and to the boost of the online commerce; the hotel sector maintains its constant share, while the retail sector reported a decrease in the investment volume intensity; the sectors less targeted so far, such as the residential market for rent and for students started to grow, although the product availability is limited98. Warsaw, Prague, Budapest and to a lesser extent Bucharest and Sofia show up on the investment radar insofar as investor are looking for bigger yields than those they can obtain in the more mature European markets. Consequently, the steep competition for investment products in the CEE region should still target yields for prime and secondary assets, especially in the office, industrial and logistics sectors.99 Figure 114. Net prime yields in European cities, 2018 Source: Adapted after The Polish Real Estate Guide 2019 edition Poland, The real state of the real estate and completed with data on Bucharest. The upward trend of the indexes relevant for the real estate market is manifested in all 5 cities selected from the Central and Eastern Europe. If Prague, Warsaw or Budapest acknowledged and strengthened their position of dynamic cities at European level which started to play an important role in the European Union, in the past years surprises came from cities like Bucharest or Sofia which, due to the economic boom, have started reducing the gaps. If the cities in the former category start reaching their limits (either physical limits - the limitations imposed by available spaces, or social limits - the limited or unavailable workforce), the latter, more specifically Bucharest and Sofia prove to be strong competitors, as they are able to meet precisely those needs. The growth pace of these two cities is an indicator of their profiling in the investment market both due to lower rental prices and to higher investment yields. 98 See ibid. 99 See ibid. 126 City profiles (2019) City Warsaw (Poland) Prague (the Czech Republic) Budapest (Hungary) Sofia (Bulgaria) Bucharest (Romania) Hierarchy Capital City Capital City Capital City Capital City Capital City Organizatio 18 neighborhoods / sectors 22 neighborhoods / sectors 23 neighborhoods / sectors 24 neighborhoods / sectors 6 sectors n Comparison in terms of surface Recent investments in Lack of full ring roads, (partly Budapest is the most important • Sofia is an important hub for Bucharest is a major crossroad Transport infrastructure development; operational the central ring - MO road terminal, and all highways the international railroad and of the national road network of and Lack of full ring road, the city is and the outer ring road - D0); the and railways end at the city road transport. Three of the Romania. Highways A1 to accessibility transited daily (ranks 11 - EU city is transited daily by those margins. ten pan-European transport Pitești, A2 to Constanța and A3 (multiple traffic jams); who want to cross it; The ring road M0 around corridors cross this city: IV, to Ploiești start here. documentat Direct connection Lodz- Poznan The city is the hub of the Czech Budapest is almost finalized, VIII and X. There is a Bucharest ring road in ion sources: – Berlin by A2 highway; railroad system, with services to with only one segment to go; • The Central Station is the place and now a metropolitan official The main railway station is all areas in the country and There are three main stations: main domestic and ring road under construction webpages Warszawa connected to almost abroad; Keleti (east), Nyugati (west) and international railroad (the city ranks first for traffic of the cities, all important cities in Poland The main international railway Déli (south), operating both transport node. jams in the EU). www.wikip and with international station in Prague is Hlavní domestic and international • Sofia International Airport is The North Station is the main edia.com) connections. Other five major Nádraží, and there are other 3 railroad services. Budapest is about 11 km away from the railroad transport node, railway stations and various stations and suburban stations; one of the main stops along the city center. providing domestic and suburban stations. the commuter rail system route between Central and • Public transport is well international railroad transport. 2 international airports: Chopin operates under the name of Esko Eastern Europe. There is a developed with buses (2,380 There are other 4 stations: International Airport (10 km Praha, which is part of PID suburban railroad service km), tramway lines (308 km) Basarab, Obor, Băneasa and away from the city center) and (Integrated Transport Prague). around Budapest, with three and trolleybus (193 km) Progresul. Warsaw International Airport - Prague is served by the Václav lines operating under the name covering all city areas. The Bucharest is served by 2 Modlin (35 km away from the Havel Prague Airport, the largest of HÉV. Sofia subway service has two airports: Henri Coandă city center); airport in the Czech Republic and Budapest is served by Ferenc lines and 34 stations, with a International Airport (16.5 km Public transport in Warsaw one of the largest and busiest Liszt International Airport third line under construction. away from the city center - the includes buses, tramways, airports in the Central and most important air transport 127 City profiles (2019) City Warsaw (Poland) Prague (the Czech Republic) Budapest (Hungary) Sofia (Bulgaria) Bucharest (Romania) subway, the Warszawska Kolej Eastern Europe (almost 20 km (BUD) - 16 km away from the node at national level) and Dojazdowa commuter railway, away from the city center); city center. Aurel Vlaicu Airport (exclusively the Szybka Kolej Miejska urban Public transport in Prague There are 2 commercial ports at for VIP flights, 8 km away from railway, the Koleje Mazowieckie includes the subway (very much the Danube, an international the city center); regional railway (Mazov used, 65 km covered with a total cargo port and a passenger Public transport in Bucharest is railways) and bicycle sharing number of 61 stations), port. managed by STB (Bucharest systems (Veturilo). Buses, tramways, buses, suburban Public transport in Budapest is Transport Company) and tramways, urban railways and trains, cable cars and six provided by the Budapest Metrorex, with 4 subway lines, the subway are managed by ferryboats. Transport Centre (BKK), one of buses, tramway and trolleybus Zarząd Transportu Miejskiego Prague reports one of the highest the largest transport lines. The subway route is (ZTM, the Municipal Transport rates of public transport use in authorities in Europe. BKK currently being extended. Authority in Warsaw). the world, with 1.2 billion trips operates 4 subway lines, 5 per year. suburban railroad lines, 33 tramway lines, 15 trolleybus lines, 264 bus lines (including 40 night routes), 4 boat services and BuBi - a smart bicycle sharing network. Futár, the passenger information and real time trip planning system is already implemented. 128 Figure 115. Single person monthly costs and four-person family monthly costs; cost of living index and position in the city ranking (according to Numbeo) for Bucharest, Warsaw, Prague, Sofia and Budapest. Source: Data adapted from numbeo.com; the cost of living index and the city ranking are calculated by numbeo.com, using their own methodology (accessed in March 2020). Bucharest registers a lower cost of living index compared to the other cities we analyzed: almost 2% lower than Sofia, almost 7% lower than Warsaw, almost 10% lower than Budapest and almost 20% lower than Prague. 129 Figure 116. Monthly rent costs for a 1-bedroom apartment or a 3-bedroom apartment, depending on their location (in city center or outside city center); cost of living index and position in the city ranking (according to Numbeo) for Bucharest, Warsaw, Prague, Sofia and Budapest. Source: Data adapted from numbeo.com; the cost of living index and the city ranking are calculated by numbeo.com, using their own methodology (accessed in March 2020). Rent in Bucharest is lower than in Budapest (where the average monthly rent is 30% higher than in Bucharest), than in Warsaw (where the average monthly rent is 60% higher than in Bucharest), and than in Prague (where the average monthly rent is 90% higher than in Bucharest). Only Sofia registers lower rent values (the average rent is almost 0.5% lower than in Bucharest). 130 Figure 117. Average purchase price for 1 apartment, depending on its location (in city center or outside city center); breakdown of expenditure and public transport pass prices (according to Numbeo) for Bucharest, Warsaw, Prague, Sofia and Budapest. Source: Data adapted from numbeo.com; the average price per square meter to buy an apartment is taken from numbeo.com, and is maintained for better comparison between cities (accessed in March 2020). In terms of access to housing, the macro analysis points out that 2 of the 5 cities, more specifically Bucharest and Sofia register the lowest values of the average net salaries and of the average price per square meter to buy. Prague leads the ranking by far (with an average price per square meter 270% higher than in Bucharest) followed by Warsaw (with an average price per square meter 180% higher than in Bucharest), and by Budapest (with an average price per square meter 163% higher than in Bucharest). It is interesting to note that the analysis of annual mortgage interest rates shows a reversed ranking, with the lowest rate reported by Prague, followed by Sofia, Warsaw and Budapest; Bucharest registers the highest rate (almost 230% higher than in Prague for a mortgage loan granted based on an average net salary which is 36% lower). 131 Figure 118. The office space market in Bucharest, Warsaw, Prague, Sofia and Budapest. Source: Adapted after the report What’s up CEE? All you need to know about real estate in CEE, BNP Paribas 2019 with additional information. In terms of rent, the office space market is still dominated by the three large competitors in the Central and Eastern Europe: Prague, Warsaw and Budapest, which also register a vacancy rate below 8.5%. The highest values for stocks under construction are registered in Warsaw, but Bucharest dominates the new delivery market - exceeding Warsaw by more than 50%, due to the high demand for class A offices from the tertiary sector (especially IT, financial and banking or business services). 132 Figure 119. Retail buildings market for Bucharest, Warsaw, Prague, Sofia and Budapest Source: Adapted after the report What’s up CEE? All you need to know abo ut real estate in CEE, BNP Paribas 2019 with additional information. In terms of rent, the retail buildings market is also dominated by the three large competitors in the Central and Eastern Europe: Prague, Warsaw and Budapest. However, the markets in Bucharest and Sofia prove to be attractive due to the constant and substantial growth of the commercial sector in the past 5 years, but especially due to the yields they offer. 133 Figure 120. Industrial space market for Bucharest, Warsaw, Prague, Sofia and Budapest Source: Adapted after the report What’s up CEE? All you need to know about real estate in CEE, BNP Paribas 2019 with additional information. In terms of rent, the industrial space market maintains a certain balance, with very little differences between the 5 markets analyzed. However, some of these markets are more attractive: Warsaw and Bucharest have the largest stocks under construction; and Sofia and Bucharest register the highest prime yields due to the relocation of manufacturing and logistics companies in the area (looking for stable and qualified workforce) and to the decrease in the unemployment rate in the past 5 years. 134 6.3 Real estate market in Romania Residential market: The most recent data published by INS indicate for March 2020 that 3,224 building permits were issued for residential buildings, a 4.0% increase compared to February 2020 and a 15.0% decrease compared to March 2019. 8,645 building permits were issued for residential buildings in the first quarter of 2020, a 0.3% decrease compared to the same quarter of the previous year. Decreases were reported in the following development regions: Bucharest-Ilfov (-238 permits), South East (-107), West (-94) and Centre (-69). Increases were reported in the following development regions: North- West (+233 permits), North-East (+167), South-West Oltenia (+72) and South-Muntenia (+8).100 A total number of 50,648 were issued in 2019 at national level, of which 152 permits for collective residential buildings and 42,541 permits for residential buildings (other than collective residential buildings); these covered total floor areas of 101,171 m 2 and 10,965,486 m2, respectively (according to INS Tempo online). The total number of permits and the total floor area decreased, at national level, by 32%compared to 2008. The breakdown by type of building indicates that the total floor area decreased, by more than 75% for the collective residential buildings (the total floor area built in 2019 was 370.000 sqm smaller than in 2008) and by more than 25% for residential buildings (other than collective residential buildings) (the total floor area built in 2019 was 3,986,289 sqm smaller than in 2008). Table 6. Building Permits (BP), by authorized area (m2), for all building categories in Bucharest and Ilfov (2008-2019) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ilfov County 2,106,714 1,173,704 1,076,996 1,148,459 1,405,360 1,273,085 763,928 793,769 850,262 969,799 936,317 999,175 compared to dynamics Bucharest dynamics previous year - 56% 65% 104% 107% 114% 97% 107% 108% 107% 122% 91% 3,055,675 1,270,440 1,180,661 1,163,695 1,205,442 1,024,134 1,560,475 1,624,297 1,916,963 951,579 679,179 906,947 compared to City previous year - 42% 93% 99% 82% 71% 177% 75% 113% 152% 104% 118% Source: Adapted after INS Tempo online data. Of the total number of permits issued for 2019, 5,130 were for the Bucharest-Ilfov Region, representing about 10%; the total surface authorized for the Bucharest-Ilfov Region was 3,190,048, approximately 30% of the total at national level. Although the total number of permits reveals a more intense permit issuance activity in Ilfov County (6 times more permits than in Bucharest), the total surface is almost 35% smaller compared to Bucharest. The dynamics of the surfaces for which permits were issued is different for the two ATUs analyzed: the total floor area authorized for Bucharest in 2008-2013 decreased and the growth recommenced in 2015 and lasted until 2019 (a decrease by 38% for 2019 compared to 2008); the total floor area authorized for the Ilfov County in 2008-2010 decreased, the constant growth in 2010-2018 (with a significant peak in 2014, when the authorized 100 https://insse.ro/cms/sites/default/files/com_presa/com_pdf/autoriz03r20.pdf 135 surface almost doubled from one year to another) and a decrease registered in 2019 compared to 2018. Figure 121. Building Permits (BP) by authorized area (m2), for all building categories in Bucharest and Ilfov, distribution in 2019 Source: Adapted after INS Tempo online data. The economic growth of Bucharest had considerable effects on its periurban territory, mainly on the localities in the proximity of the city, which is reflected in the high number of construction permits issued in those localities, especially in the residential sector. A detailed analysis reveals that the large number of dwellings around the capital city favored a more intense suburbanization process, especially due to the much lower land prices, which supported future developments. The most attractive/active localities were: Voluntari, Mogoșoaia, Snagov, Corbeanca, Popești -Leordeni, Berceni, Bragadiru, Otopeni, Chiajna, Domnești and Clinceni. In the past two years, the number of permits issued in the Ilfov County decreased and it increased in Bucharest, an indicator that the suburbanization phenomenon slows down. However, overall, the building activity is 40% lower than in 2008, which indicates a lower demand, despite the significant increase in the population income; the effects of the demographic decline are felt even in the most active real estate market at national level. Figure 122. Building Permits (BP) for the residential segment, by authorized area (m2), for all building categories in Bucharest and Ilfov (2008-2019) Source: Adapted after INS Tempo online data. 136 Figure 123. Building Permits (BP) issued for residential buildings for communities in Ilfov County Source: Adapted after INS Tempo online data. 137 Figure 124. Building Permits (BP) issued for residential buildings, excluding those for communities in Ilfov County Source: Adapted after INS Tempo online data. 138 At national level, the residential market has seen a moderate increase in 2018, and the selling prices continued the trend reported since 2014. According to INS data, the number of dwelling shows an ascending trend: it increased by 12% in 2018 compared to 2017, with a total of 59,725 new units, and it increased by 13% in 2019 compared to 2018, with a total of 67,512 new units; thus, 2019 slightly exceeded the maximum threshold registered in 2008 (67,255 units). The regional distribution in 2019 compared to 2018 highlights an increase in the number of dwellings completed in the following development regions: Bucharest-Ilfov (+3560 dwellings), South East (+1,742), West (+1,372), South- Muntenia (+605), Centre (+509) and North-East (+428). Decreases were registered in the following regions: South-East (-381 dwellings) and South-West Oltenia (-36)101. Figure 125. Housing stock (apartments and houses) in Bucharest and Ilfov County for 2008-2018 Source: Adapted after INS Tempo online data. In the past two years, the number of dwellings completed in the Bucharest-Ilfov Region increased: 14,832 new units were completed in 2019, accounting for a +22% increase compared to the previous year; and 11,272 new units were completed in 2018, accounting for a 18.2% increase compared to the previous year. If there was a visible trend to build outside the city between 2008 and 2017, in 2018 and 2019 we note a subtle increase in the number of new units completed in the city (58% of the total new units delivered) compared to those in Ilfov County, which indicates a slowdown of the growth pace in the county and a return to the core urban area. 101 https://insse.ro/cms/sites/default/files/com_presa/com_pdf/constr_loc_tr4r_19.pdf 139 Figure 126. Annual evolution of average prices per m2 floor area for apartments Source: Adapted after https://www.analizeimobiliare.ro/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/11/Raport_Q3_2019eng.pdf According to the imobiliare.ro index, at national level, the average selling prices for dwellings reported an average increase by 6.4% in 2018 and by 4.7% in the first three quarters of 2019. Thus, at national level, the average price reached the value of EUR 1,239/sqm of floor area (according to the imobiliare.ro index) in 2018 and it continued to increase to EUR 1,341/sqm (according to economica.net) for the first three quarters of 2019102. According to the same website, at national level, the average prices of new apartments increased by 8.1%, reaching EUR 1,412 / sqm of floor area, while the average prices for old apartments increased by 3.8% reaching EUR 1,232 / sqm of floor area, in 2018. 102 https://www.economica.net/pretul-mediu-solicitat-pentru-apartamente-la-nivel-national-a-crescut-cu-8-2prc-anul- trecut-la-1-341-euro/mp_178320.html 140 Figure 127. Annual evolution of average prices per m2 floor area for apartments Residential market (2019) Source: Adapted after https://www.analizeimobiliare.ro/ wp-content/uploads/2019/ 11/Raport_Q3_2019eng.pdf and the imobiliare.ro index and INS Tempo online. For 2018, the cities which register the highest values of the average prices per sqm of floor area are: Cluj-Napoca, Bucharest, Timișoara, Constanța and Brașov, all with values exceeding EUR 1,000 de euro/sqm. In 2019, Craiova and Iași joined the cities that report values exceeding EUR 1,000 de euro/sqm (EUR 1,090 and EUR 1,010, respectively), and Oradea came very close to this average value threshold (with EUR 990). 141 Figure 128. Comparison average price/m2 floor area for apartments in Cluj–Napoca, Bucharest, Timișoara, Constanța and Brașov (December 2019) Source: https://www.imobiliare.ro/indicele-imobiliare-ro/ and https://www.analizeimobiliare.ro/wp- content/uploads/2019/11/Raport_Q3_2019eng.pdf. The Romanian real estate market still registers the highest values in Cluj-Napoca, due to the strong economic growth of the city, by strengthening the IT clusters (the average net salary at national level in this sector was RON 5,731 in 2018, according to paylab.ro), and due to the high migration values, by attracting well paid workforce. Cluj-Napoca is also a strong university center which benefits from a strategic geographic positioning. Thus, Cluj-Napoca, just like Bucharest, witnessed a strong development of its peri-urban area (e.g., the intensive suburbanization of Florești commune, a favorable location for new residential developments at much more affordable prices compared to the core urban area and the intensive suburbanization of Popești-Leordeni or Berceni, as extensions of already existing Bucharest neighborhoods). The average monthly rent values (for a 2-room apartment built in 1980-2000) are dominated by the main university centers: Cluj-Napoca (EUR 420/monthly rent), Bucharest (EUR 410/monthly rent), Iași 142 and Brașov (EUR 350/monthly rent), Târgu Mureș and Tulcea (EUR 320/monthly rent), Constanța and Ploiești (EUR 300/monthly rent).103 Figure 129. Average monthly rent values for a 2-room apartment built in 1980-2000 Source: Adapted data from https://www.analizeimobiliare.ro/wpcontent/uploads/2019/11/Raport_Q3_2019eng.pdf. Office market: The economic diversification and the workforce specialization in excellence fields with long-term growth and development potential (like IT) led to the definition of technological specialization clusters in the central area of Romania (in cities like Cluj-Napoca, Sibiu or Brașov) and registered an increase in the number of jobs in IT, both for Cluj-Napoca and for Bucharest, which is comparable to that of certain European regions. Due to the economic evolution of the regional cities, real estate developers show more and more interest in investments for modern office buildings (investments supported by yields exceeding the European average). At national level, over 565,000 sqm GLA (Gross Leasable Area) of new office spaces have their delivery deadline at the end of 2019. 104 Just like with the residential market, the office space market has registered a significant increase in the modern office and delivery stock in the past years (with new peak values in 2019), both in Bucharest and in the important regional cities like: Cluj-Napoca, Timișoara, Iași and Brașov, summing up more than 870,000 sqm of modern office spaces, for the first quarter of 2019105. In the past 5 years, the modern office stock doubled for the large regional cities, with Cluj-Napoca currently the largest office market outside Bucharest, with a total stock of approximately 300,000 sqm to be reached by the end of 2019; it is followed by Timișoara with approximately 270,000 sqm of modern offices; more than 50% of the total office spaces were delivered in the past 5 years. Due to the internal migration and to workforce resources available in the area, which convinced employers that they can find the right employees and customers there, the regional office markets registered important results in new office deliveries, and the stocks increased in 2014-2019106. 103 See the report on the residential real estate market in quarter 3 2019 in Romania - https://www.analizeimobiliare.ro/wp- content/uploads/2019/11/Raport_Q3_2019eng.pdf 104 See https://www.vitalis.com/news/131/45/Office-market-evolution-over-the-past-5-years-in-Bucharest-and-major- regional-cities 105 See the report Romania – office market , regional cities, Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, H1 2019 106 See https://www.vitalis.com/news/131/45/Office-market-evolution-over-the-past-5-years-in-Bucharest-and-major- regional-cities 143 Figure 130. Office space deliveries in the regional cities and in Bucharest Source: Adapted after https://www.vitalis.com/news/131/45/Office‐market‐evolution‐over‐the‐past‐5‐ years‐inBucharest‐and‐major‐regional‐cities. Figure 131. Office space market in Bucharest, Brașov, Cluj-Napoca, Timișoara, Iași Source: Adapted after Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, H1 2019 and INS Tempo online. As regards the rental volumes in 2018, the demand maintained at comparable levels with Bucharest in the main regional cities, with a reported volume which exceeded 95,000 sqm 107. The take up rate was 45,400 sqm for S1 2019108. Timișoara registered the highest take up rate, with more than 44,000 sqm, corresponding to an annual growth by 19%, followed by Cluj-Napoca (+25.000 sqm), Iași (+12.000 107 See the report Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019 108 See the report Romania – office market , regional cities, Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, H1 2019 144 sqm) and Brașov (+6.000 sqm)109. The average rent for class A offices in regional cities ranged between EUR 11-15 /sqm / month.110 In Ilfov County we note the concentration of office spaces in the urban area, favored by the enhanced accessibility. Retail buildings market: At the end of 2018, the retail buildings stock at national level reached a total value of 3,228,250 sqm for the GLA indicator and an average national density of 163 sqm GLA / 1,000 inhabitants111. This includes 131 retail units (with areas exceeding 5,000 sqm GLA), of which 30 are located in Bucharest112. The average annual growth rate for 2009-2018 was 150,000 sqm GLA/year, representing almost 50% of the total stock 113. The Capital ranks 11 in Romania in terms of density of commercial centers, with average density of 546 sqm GLA / 1,000 inhabitants 114. Figure 132. Structure and density of modern retail building stocks Source: Adapted after Retail – Regional Cities 2019, Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, 2019. Most retail building projects are located in the main regional markets, and the new developments are concentrated outside Bucharest; thus, at the end of 2018, the retail building stocks at national level had reached 2.5 million sqm (area located outside Bucharest). Of these, 58% were located in shopping centers, 35% in retail parks and 7% in shopping arcades.115 If in 2018 approximately 104,000 sqm of retail buildings were delivered in regional cities (main, secondary and tertiary), deliveries are expected to reach 117,000 sqm in 2019, due to the major projects announced in Sibiu and Timișoara116. Unlike the office space market, the retail buildings market is much more fragmented, being divided beyond the main regional centers with economic power, with very active secondary and tertiary urban centers (like Satu Mare, Oradea, Baia Mare, Bistrița, Focșani, Roman or Slobozia). Cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants concen trate 89% of the existing stock; 31% are located in Bucharest and 27% are placed in the regional capitals (Cluj- Napoca, Timișoara, Iași, Constanța, Brașov and Craiova)117. 109 See the report Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019 110 See the report Romania – office market , regional cities, Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, H1 2019 111 See the report Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019 112 See the report Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019 113 See the report Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019 114 See the report Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019 115 See the report Retail – Regional Cities 2019, Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, 2019 116 See the report Retail – Regional Cities 2019, Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, 2019 117 See the report Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019 145 Due to the low availability of retail buildings and to the growing sales, we note an increase in 2018 in the prime rent values in shopping centers. The breakdown by locality indicates that the average prime rental values in shopping centers (areas ranging between 100-200 sqm) range between EUR 45-80 / sqm / month in Bucharest, EUR 20-40 /sqm / month in cities with more than 150,000 inhabitants and EUR 10-25 / sqm / month in county capitals with 80,000-150,000 inhabitants. The vacancy rates are very low in the prime segment - reaching only 2%-3%118. Real estate indicators for the street retail units (commercial ground floor/displays along boulevards/commercial arterial roads) showed a slight increase (constant since 2014) without crucial changes in the demand/supply ratio. This increase occurred against the background of higher overall sales volumes, which enabled traders to extend and to look for prime locations, with prime rental values. The street locations still register high vacancy rates due to the legal restrictions, to the degradation of their hosting spaces or to the lack of related amenities - such as parking lots which are crucial in the development of buyer habits; despite increased accessibility, either as pedestrian or as public transport users, customers prefer shopping in the big shopping centers (as noted by most traders). Figure 133. Evolution of prime rental values in shopping centers and along commercial arterial roads Source: Adapted after Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019. The commercial arterial roads which register positive trends in the real estate indicators are located in those cities which invested most public funds in the rehabilitation and renewal of public spaces, most of them concentrated in the western and central parts of the country (cities such as Brașov, Sibiu, Timișoara, Cluj-Napoca and Oradea119). The prime rental values for retail buildings adjacent to arterial roads ranged in 2019 between EUR 45-90 / sqm / month in Bucharest, EUR 35-40 / sqm / month in the best locations outside Bucharest in the country, and EUR 15-35 / sqm /month in other cities (with population exceeding 75,000 persons)120. 118 See the report Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019 119 See the report Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019 120 See the report Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019 146 Figure 134. Retail buildings market in Cluj-Napoca, Oradea, Timișoara, Iași, Brașov, and Bucharest Source: Adapted after Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, 2019 and INS Tempo online. Industrial and logistics spaces market. The industrial and logistics spaces extended steadily since 2015, reaching 3.61 million sqm in S1 2019, of which almost 50% in Bucharest (1.76 sqm), followed by Timișoara (with almost 0.5 million sqm)121. 57.5% of the new space deliveries, which reached 200,000 sqm in S1 2019, occurred in the Bucharest area. The 300,000 sqm planned to be delivered in S2 2019 are located in Ploiești, Bucharest, Deva and Oradea. Another important indicator, more specifically GLA, reached 900,000 sqm GLA of new industrial spaces finalized at national level, almost 50% more than in 2017 122. Bucharest remains the most desirable destination, with approximately 41% of the total demand registered here and with the highest values of newly-built areas. We note a concentration of residential areas and of office buildings in Bucharest, doubled by the transfer of support industries and of logistics activities towards the Capital periphery. 121 See the report MARKETBEAT INDUSTRIAL & LOGISTICS MARKET H1 2019, Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, 2019 122 See the report Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019 147 Figure 135. Location of main industrial and logistics spaces in the Bucharest-Ilfov Region Source: The authors. Figure 136. Evolution of new industrial and logistics spaces at national level Source: Adapted after Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, 2019. Rental values for industrial spaces registered an upward trend, influenced by the demand and pre- construction activity volumes, and by the cost increase in 2019. Prime rent still ranges between 148 average values of EUR 3.5-4.0 / sqm / month123. Since 80% of the assets are controlled by a limited number of players (like CTP, WDP), the industrial space market is expected to strengthen in the future124. Figure 137. Industrial space market in Cluj-Napoca, Timișoara, Brașov, Pitești, Ploiești and Bucharest Source: Adapted after Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, 2019 and INS Tempo online. 6.4 Analysis of the real estate market in Bucharest in 2008-2019 6.4.1 Residential market Closely linked to the recent history of the country, the evolution of the real estate market in Romania was clearly determined by the shift to a market economy. If nothing remarkable happened in the real estate market in 1990-1998, as the evolution was slow and relatively stable, we may say that the 1998- 2000 brought the first small corrections in the real estate field. The beginnings of foreign developments and investments brought Romania in the European and global real estate flows. Later, the real estate crisis hit Romania as well, in 2008-2010, although many analysists believed that this crisis will not impact a developing market like Romania. Another defining aspect in this real estate crisis was related to the diminishing foreign capital and investments, influenced by the global evolution of the real estate market, because the Romanian capital was just developing. 123 See the report Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019 124 See the report MARKETBEAT INDUSTRIAL & LOGISTICS MARKET H1 2019, Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, 2019 149 Figure 138. Dwellings built after 1990 Source: The authors. If in the previous historical cycles, a real estate crisis lasted on average two years, the 2008 crisis was much more severe, as it was determined by the global banking crisis. Nevertheless, the post-crisis period meant maturity and stability for the real estate market. If during the boom period real estate developers built chaotically and massively, their next step was to refine their products, to complete constructions and to sell with the lowest loss possible, to disencumber their portfolios. Housing demand Bucharest maintains its top position in 2019125, as the demand registered on the real estate advertisement website (imobiliare.ro) exceeded 350,100 visualizations / potential buyers (who analyzed the apartment or house offer from a total of 662,000 visualizations at national level), and the value increased in the fourth quarter of 2019 by 18% compared to the previous year and by 71% compared to the past 5 years values; this strengthens the Capital position compared to the other 125According to data included in the ROMANIAN RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORT – Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 for 2019 developed by analizeimobiliare.ro, together with imobiliare.ro. In this case, the demand comes from potential buyers who expressed interest for a certain property on the imobiliare.ro portal, within a certain period of time, by registering an action (phone number visualisation, submission of e-mail requesting more details, add printing or saving). 150 important regional cities, by maintaining the housing demand almost constant along the year. The search structure remained relatively constant along the year in terms of dwelling age, with a 60% to 40% ratio126 in favor of dwelling built after 2000. In 2019, the number of listings/apartments built before 2000 and published for sale registered approximately 30,000 units 127, a decrease by almost 18% compared to 2018. The analysis of these 2 factors which define the real estate highlights their contribution to maintaining high selling prices, with the variations identified by the analysis between the real estate advertisement areas. Also, there is a clear link between the high demand for new housing and the new investments (in Q4 of 2019, more than 11,000 apartments were available in new residential projects which are under construction or will commence), due to the stabilization of certain key points in the North, East and West sub-markets, which are most active in terms of units available for sale (for 2019-2021). The analysis of the rental supply for 2019 shows approximately 150,000 visualizations only for Bucharest128, an increase by 7% compared to the previous year and by 54% for the past 5 years. The supply of apartments for rent (in blocks built before 2000) was approximately 35,600 units 129, thus exceeding the demand registered. The large supply is also supported by the role of university center played by the city. If the preference for new dwellings (here we only consider those built after 2000) is supported by the benefits of purchasing a new apartment, often with turn-key finishing (according to the buyer’s preferences), we still note the issue of managing the existing housing stock built before 1990, and especially the housing stock built before 1977, which exceeded their life cycle. The demand still exceeds the supply in Bucharest, and dwellings in the large ensembles built before 1990 are attractive (especially in terms of location enabling access to public transport means, amenities or selling prices - with the variations identified by the analysis). They are especially attractive for a population with revenues below average, with no access to mortgage loans for amounts covering higher values or amounts closer to the threshold value imposed by the First House Program, for example; some dwellings are included in the seismic risk category, so they cannot be used as loan collateral and cannot be insured. Analysis of sale offers The city, together with the its-urban area, has developed and grown due to private investments which happened at a faster pace than the public investments; the slow development of the support infrastructure compared to the construction pace is a painful issue but a well-planned strategic approach could push the city towards a new real estate growth and evolution period. This potential growth is also favored by the changes in the European real estate market, such as the Brexit, the oversaturation of the Western and Central European markets etc. We also note that the Romanian real estate market matured visibly, due to the use of established tools to launch new projects, tools such as accurate demand analysis, development of substantiated real estate surveys, investors seeking to build in accessible areas with real accommodation perspectives, and private investments correlated with infrastructure investments. Therefore, it is expected that in 2019-2021 cyclic correlations should not show imbalance values in the real estate market, given the stabilization occurred in 2008-2019. The residential market in Bucharest has witnessed an upward trend, manifest until the third quarter of 2019. After a stagnation around 0.8% during the first quarter of 2019 and of 0.4%, respectively, 126 According to data included in the ROMANIAN RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORT – Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 for 2019 developed by analizeimobiliare.ro, together with imobiliare.ro. 127 According to data included in the ROMANIAN RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORT – Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 for 2019 developed by analizeimobiliare.ro, together with imobiliare.ro. 128 According to data included in the ROMANIAN RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORT – Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 for 2019 developed by analizeimobiliare.ro, together with imobiliare.ro. 129 According to data included in the ROMANIAN RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORT – Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 for 2019 developed by analizeimobiliare.ro, together with imobiliare.ro. 151 during the second quarter, the quarterly price increase rate reached 3.2% in the third quarter. Thus, new apartments in the Capital City reported the highest price increase for housing in the past two years, at national level.130 This price increase noted in 2019 was favored by the increase in the new housing prices, as the new residential project stocks has much more accessible locations, were built with more attention to details, an aspect which influenced the final construction cost; all the aspects should be correlated with the diminishing land resources in Bucharest, especially around the infrastructure nodes, and land is also more expensive now. Also, the recent years brought along some major changes in the residential market: • Banks became more selective and cautious in financing projects (unlike 2008); the loan system changed (both for developers and for buyers), as the indebtedness level was reduced to 40% of the revenues of the individual who applies for a loan. Moreover, the banking market includes banking institutions which do not fund residential developments for two reasons: (1) because at some point (after 2008) they had a set of toxic assets in their portfolio and they had to valorize them; (2) many of the banking institutions which are active in Romania are branches of important foreign banks, and they apply the headquarters decisions. • Access to mortgage loans: the asset valuation process to apply for mortgage loans changed - if in 2008 valuations did not reflect any of the real market value of an asset but they were overestimations and were accepted by the funding industry due to the strong growth pace, in 2019 valuations were generally undervaluations or moderate valuations, so as to maintain a more balanced attitude towards loans and indebtedness, and especially by imposing a minimum 15% threshold of the advance payment requested by the bank. • Buyer behavior: the customer is better educated and much more aware of what housing acquisition means, after witnessing the economic recession is more informed (the online platforms for property buying and selling became an information source which is quite close to reality) and has more options in the market, due to a much more diverse range of products, therefore the customer can now choose according to budget, potential or needs. • Legislation amendments: the launch of the governmental program First House (2009) which was maintained in the real estate market and modelled the apartment market (especially the 2-room apartment market) and the 19% VAT rate for new dwellings, after the real estate collapse, all these have slowly modelled a type of behavior, both for sellers and for developers. If in previous chapter the analysis focused on average prices per square meter, out=r analysis on the evolution of apartment prices in Bucharest in 2008-2019 (S1) will further focus on the types of apartments: studios, 2-room apartments etc., detailing up to neighborhood level, so as to provide a most accurate picture. The analysis also discusses the peculiarities and the unique features of the real estate developments which cannot characterize an entire area (although they fall within the average values for that area), as the price is also influenced by the location, the number of units available or the quality of available finishing or compartmentalization etc. This is relevant because the selling prices are set taking into account some qualitative aspects of the Bucharest neighborhoods: • Reputation - closely related to the inhabitants’ perception; it matters a great deal if the area has a higher crime rate or is perceived as unsafe or, conversely, is very safe; this aspect has influenced the value of the average selling price in neighborhoods like Rahova (Ferentari) or Ghencea where, although the housing stock was built after 1977, the neighborhood reputation maintained the house values below the overall average registered for the city. 130 See Romanian residential market report, Q3 2019 152 • The accessibility and mobility to/from the neighborhood and the links with other city areas or with the periphery - represented both by the road accessibility and by the access to public transport means; areas with more public transport options are obviously in higher demand. • The quality of the existing and future housing stock - a very important aspect which seems to have a significant weight in the decisions made by informed buyers, it includes both the construction age (which in important in the case of seismic risk, for example, because historically, the construction standards have been gradually improved after each major event) and the quality of construction materials or any possible improvements to the apartment itself or to shared areas (e.g., thermal rehabilitation); • Access to amenities and facilities in the area - retail buildings and shopping centers, schools, kindergartens or nurseries, bodies of water, these are just some of the factors which can have a decisive influence on property value; most existing amenities in the neighborhoods were built and located so as to serve the needs of inhabitants in the numbers estimated at that time; therefore, after 2000, the construction of supporting services for real estate developments lagged behind, and the new inhabitants used the already existing spaces (which now became undersized). • The development and diversification degree of the area - new functions, office buildings, commercial areas, services and infrastructure development (road infrastructure or public transport infrastructure) - these are the strongest incentives for property price increases. 2019 brought new real estate developments in the residential segment in Bucharest, which reported an increase by 40% compared to 2018. The largest real estate projects already commenced - total planned units - are concentrated in the northern, western and eastern parts of the city (according to data available on the real estate websites or on developers’ websites): Metalurgiei Park South 5000 units Palladium Residence East 2500 units Plaza Residence West 2042 units AFI City North 2000 units Onix Park North 2000 units West Garden West 1700 units Belvedere Residence North 1550 units 21 Residence West 1500 units Vivenda East 1400 units H Pipera Lake North 1350 units Moghioros Park Residence West 1300 units Rotar Park Residence West 1300 units Sema City West 1200 units Gran Via Park West 1200 units One United + One Herăstrău Park + One Verdi North 236 + 106 + 134 units Vastint - Sisești North 10,000 units 153 Figure 139. New residential developments, completed or under construction in 2018-2021, available for sale: classification by the number of apartment units Source: The authors. Having analyzed the average price values by apartment type and by apartment floor, we note that prices in S1-2019 did not reach the same levels as in S1-2008; moreover, certain areas were very much impacted by decreases, and the average price per sqm was even 50% lower than in 2008, even after the price increase trends reported since 2014. 154 Table 7 Evolution of average sale prices 2019 versus 2008, by apartment type Studio 2-room apartment 3-room apartment +4-room apartment ground floor / last ground floor / last ground floor / last ground floor / last mid-floor average mid-floor average mid-floor average mid-floor average floor average floor average floor average floor average selling price selling price selling price selling price selling price selling price selling price selling price 2008-S1 85,782 € 87,858 € 129,824 € 134,360 171,361 € 179,256 € 207,654 € 229,934 € € (2,468 € / (2,401 € / (2,294 € / (2,350 € (2,145 € / (2,178 € (2,020 € (2,103 € / sqm) sqm) sqm) / sqm) sqm) /sqm) /sqm) sqm) 2019-S1 47,754 € 45,013 € 73,432 € 77,995 € 114,891 € 116,538 € 160,411 € 168,600 € (1,302 € / (1,347 € (1,333 € (1,394 € (1,406 € (1,422 € (1,346 € (1,441 € sqm) /sqm) /sqm) /sqm) /sqm) /sqm) /sqm) /sqm) Evolution -44% -49% -43% -42% -33% -35% -23% -27% 2019 vs 2008 Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. Figure 140. Evolution of average sale prices 2019 versus 2008, by apartment type Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. At the beginning of 2008, apartment prices in block built before 1990 had increased by 50% compared to 2007; and in Bucharest only 1,500 apartments were delivered to customers in large residential projects, such as Central Park from Ștefan cel Mare and Quadra Place from Militari/ Lujerului. The early stages of the real estate crisis had a very strong impact on developers/investors, but stronger than on owners who intended to sell their apartments. Thus, they had to change their sales strategies; this led to sale price reductions by up to 25% or the possibility to pay monthly instalments directly to the developer. Some strategies proved efficient, and some developers managed to overcome this difficult period, while others became insolvent or bankrupt. The decreases in housing sale prices were felt more deeply in the second half of 2008, although the initial blockage was not acknowledged so strongly at the beginning. This was registered only at the beginning of 2009, and the trend was maintained until 2014. 155 2009-2014 also witnessed a decrease in the number of apartments for sale, due to the lack of very robust demand, corroborated with diminished access to loan instruments. Thus, the changes occurred in 2008 sent two strong signals: • The real estate market belongs to the buyers - those who had liquidities in 2009-2014 could make very profitable acquisitions. Sellers who were not under pressure to sell withdrew their sale offers, and activated a sort of real estate hibernation. • Funding provided by banks entered a different phase - the loan conditions were changed and new instruments were introduced in the market to foster the revival of the residential real estate market. Also, the 2009-2014 period was characterized by the sale of housing units from the stock built before 1990 and by a number of selling offers which were much lower compared to 2008. No large real estate projects were initiated. Even though the opinions differ in the market, some indicating a price recovery at the level of those reported in 2008, in terms of economic growth and net wages, there are counterarguments which maintain that some market conditions also changed dramatically: the new apartment supply increased for 2019 compared to 2008, and the loan conditions are more difficult. If in 2008 most transactions for new apartments were made from the design phase (developers tried to attract buyers with promotional prices, while after 2-3 months, when the actual sale happened, the price would increase by 15%-20% on average), things look somewhat different in 2019, as the sale levels for apartments in the design phase were about 30%-40%. Hence, the statistics in the real estate boom period were influenced by this evolution which registered thousands of units sold monthly, although nothing had been built physically. Moreover, in 2008, the portfolio of apartments for sale in Bucharest was dominated by the housing stock built before 1990. Table 8. Evolution of average sale prices per m2 2019 versus 2008, by apartment type, by construction year 2-room 3-room +4-room Studio apartment apartment apartment 2008- 2019- 2008- 2019- 2008- 2019- 2008- 2019- S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 Average price per sqm built before 2,560 € 1,284 € 2,329 € 1,312 € 2,259 € 1,328 € 2,325 € 1,400 € 1941 Evolution 2019 vs 2008 -50% -44% -41% -40% Average price per sqm built 2,553 € 1,344 € 2,270 € 1,238 € 2,141 € 1,208 € 2,062 € 1,230 € between 1941-1977 Evolution 2019 vs 2008 -47% -45% -44% -40% Average price per sqm built 2,366 € 1,393 € 2,315 € 1,406 € 2,126 € 1,409 € 2,083 € 1,435 € between 1977-2000 Evolution 2019 vs 2008 -41% -39% -34% -31% Average price per sqm built after 2,010 € 1,348 € 2,359 € 1,506 € 2,275 € 1,520 € 2,226 € 1,698 € 2000 Evolution 2019 vs 2008 -33% -36% -33% -24% Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. Main relevant aspects for the reference period: • The difference between the prices registered in 2008 and in 2019 exceeded -50% in some cases, as the market showed a strong downward trend until 2014 - when minimum representative values were registered for the entire reference period. Starting from 2014, the strong economic growth and the increase in population income, doubled by the implementation of the “First House” Program, led to a revitalization of the real estate market. • During the reference period (2008 – 2019 / S1) the floor areas in the apartments for sale fluctuated for all 4 categories, and the minimum floor area constantly decreased; this is 156 relevant especially for the new constructions, where developers tried to fight price decreases by various methods - the decrease of the floor area being just one of them (a smaller floor area sold and a smaller purchase price). This type of approach, although profitable in the short-term for developers, is not overall beneficial, as it impacts on the quality of housing spaces and it results in a housing stock (already large enough - see apartments included in comfort 2 or 3 categories built before 1990) which will have a fast devaluation. The variation of the maximum value, double compared to the minimum value resulted also due to the new developments where the premium projects or the local developments located at significant distances from the compact built-up urban areas (especially at the periphery) included much more generous housing units in terms of floor area, and developers chose a different instrument to render their investment more profitable: apartments with generous floor areas which target the segment of buyers with revenues above average or generous floor areas to compensate the lack of a super-attractive location. This also impacts the further development and evolution of those areas: the delimitation of premium areas with price differences strongly highlighted or the development of areas with an attractive housing stock, though with difficult access - aspect which should be considered by public authorities as well, so as to extend/complete the public service provision. • During the reference period (2008 – 2019 / S1) the ground floor / last floor prices131 decreased for studios (with minimum levels registered in 2014 - below 20,000€ sale price), for 2-room apartments (with minimum levels registered in 2012-2015 - below 40,000€ sale price), for 3- room apartments (with minimum levels registered in 2013-2016 - below 60,000€ sale price), and for +4-room apartments (with minimum levels registered in 2014 - below 70,000€ sale price). We can note that the difference between the lowest sale prices offered for the 4 types of apartments diminishes as the number of rooms increases - the +4-room market reported the lowest fluctuations during the reference period. The same aspect can be noted in the analysis of the maximum sale variation. • During the reference period (2008 – 2019 / S1) the prices of apartments located on intermediary floors had a similar evolution to the category of apartments analyzed above: the minimum sale prices decreased for studios (with minimum levels registered in 2014-2015 - below 25,000€ sale price), for 2-room apartments (with minimum levels registered in 2013- 2015 - below 45,000€ sale price), for 3-room apartments (with minimum levels registered in 2013-2015 - below 60,000€ sale price), and for +4-room apartments (with minimum levels registered in 2014 - below 75,000€ sale price). We can note the same trend of lower difference between the lowest sale prices offered for the 4 types of apartments as the number of rooms increases - the +4-room market reported the lowest fluctuations during the reference period. The same aspect can be noted in the analysis of the maximum sale variation. • The analysis of average prices/sqm also reveals some interesting peculiarities of the residential real estate market: in 2008 - all average prices/sqm registered values 2000 €/sqm, for all 4 categories of apartments, while in 2009 the average priced reached about 1600 €/sqm. If in 2008 the prices for pre-2000 and post-2000 constructions registered similar values, and the new housing supply was low, we note a clear differentiation in the first semester of 2019-S1. Consequently, we see a clear increase in the price for new housing (with clear differentiations depending on the location of the new developments - this chapter takes into account the average price): studios register average values below 1350 €/sqm, while 2 - room and 3-room apartments register values around 1550 €/sqm (which impacts the acce ss of young families to large size housing - the move from a 2-room to a 3-room apartment is gradual and often requires a mortgage loan); for +4-room apartments we can note that the average prices for the 4 categories of constructions analyzed according to acceptance year 131 A real estate indicator which is distinct from apartment for sale on other floors, which generally register different sale prices, due to their different plans - apartments usually have yards or generous terraces. 157 are the highest, with prices for new constructions of about 1700 €/sqm - which leads to an average price for +4-room apartments of about 170,000 € - an almost prohibitive price for most Bucharest inhabitants. Figure 141. Price evolution S01/2008 versus S01/2019, by real estate advertisement areas Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. Analysis of indicators based on residential sub-markets (Centre, North, South, East, West). The analysis of indicators by residential sub-markets is a useful instrument in the planning process, because it highlights the main development trends of the city. For Bucharest, the analysis is relevant for the 5 sub-markets: Centre, North, South, East, West, given the initial radial-concentric development and the geographic location of the city (in a plain with dominant natural elements consisting in bodies of water - Dâmbovița River and the Northern chain of lakes)132. 132 The neighbourhoods included in the sub-markets described are mentioned in the first part of this document - the methodology. 158 Figure 142. Breakdown of Bucharest by real estate sub-markets and directional development of Bucharest Source: The authors. The comparative analysis of the 5 sub-markets confirms the historical trend of north-oriented development, along the main structuring routes north-south, which historically connected the Court Palace, now located in the city center, and Mogoșoaia Palace. Therefore, the north area is among the most attractive and desirable areas, both for investors and for inhabitants, and it supports a significant share of the premium supply both for the residential market and for the office space market. The other sub-markets (except for the central area) remain attractive especially due to the large available supply for prices below the average at city level, both in the first semester of 2019 and during the reference period, 2008-2018. 159 Centre real estate sub-market This sub-market includes neighborhoods like Unirii or Cotroceni and is dominated by the large commercial avenues of the city, one of the most heterogeneous areas, a mix between new and old, under perpetual transformations, due to its high attractiveness level. The urban interventions in the historical fabric of the area, such as the People’s House and the Unirii Boulevard (1977-1990) or the shaping of the north-south or east-west axes between the two World Wars or, more recently, the development of the Berzei – Buzești Boulevard, which doubles the axis shaped by Calea Victoriei, all have had the role of regulating the urban fabric and of developing large pedestrian spaces (similar to the great boulevards of the European cities). Hence, the housing supply in the central area is equally diverse, just like the historical periods when such dwellings were built. The average price for the Centre sub-market registered in S1-2019 was 1,488 €/sqm. We note differentiations here as well: for example, the area of Unirii Blvd is among the most expensive areas in Bucharest, and the apartments for sale here register values above the city average - 1,559 €/sqm for the first semester of 2019. Another historical neighborhood which managed to much better preserve its character, Cotroceni neighborhood, registers average values comparable to those in the northern part of the city - 1,713.53 €/sqm. North real estate sub-market The sub-market with the most substantial premium supply, this is also the most attractive area and still offers land resources for vast real estate developments, as it is probably one of the richest areas in such offers in Bucharest, although the traffic conditions become very difficult (especially in the Ploiești -Brașov direction). The average price for the North sub-market registered in S1-2019 was 1,691 €/sqm. This average price was influenced by the private investments after 2008: the construction of large retail buildings like Promenada Mall or Băneasa Mall, the construction of an office pole, where Sky Tower is the tallest building in Romania etc., or by the public investments - the construction of a new bridge connecting Aviației and Pipera /Voluntari neighborhoods. Consequently, these neighborhoods - 1 Mai / Domenii, Aviației or Herăstrău - Nordului - although morphologically different, benefit from multiple amenities: multiple public transport options (including the north-south subway route), large green spaces in the proximity, large retail buildings, educational institutions etc. These sub-markets also register substantial differentiations: Aviației neighborhood (created in the ‘80s, with low-height apartment blocks, P+4, without lifts, with generous floor areas - the average floor area for 2-room apartments is 60 sqm; the neighborhood was designed with wide inner streets which cater for numerous parking spots) registers an average sale price of 1,870.90 €/sqm in S1-2019; comparatively, Herăstrău-Nordului neighborhood, which benefits from the proximity of Herăstrău Park, registers one of the highest average prices: 1,801.21 €/ sqm, together with Dorobanți – Floreasca neighborhoods (with 1,986.05 €/sqm) or Kiseleff-Aviatorilor (1,945.46 €/sqm). 1 Mai (Mihalache) neighborhood, with high apartment blocks built in the 1960s, with smaller 2-room apartments - 45 sqm floor area, although closer to the central area, is one of the neighborhoods which registers prices below the sub-market average - 1,597.00 €/sqm. 160 East real estate sub-market The East real estate sub-market consists mainly in large residential ensembles (bedroom neighborhoods) built starting with the ‘60s (most of them were built before the ‘80s) and is one of the most densely inhabited areas in Bucharest, providing one of the most significant sale stocks. In terms of affordability, the prices here target the middle-class, with an average value of 1,309 €/sqm for S1 – 2019. Due to the diversity of features in Colentina, Pantelimon or Titan neighborhoods (high- density neighborhoods, with high apartment blocks - especially along the main boulevards), the available apartment stock for sale registers average values of 1,080 €/sqm - for Pantelimon neighborhood, 1,096 €/sqm - for Colentina neighborhood or 1,150 €/sqm – for Titan neighborhood. Private investments have played a decisive role here as well - due to the polarization created by the Obor shopping center (doubled by Veranda Mall or Mega Mall and Park Lake); also, the public investments such as the construction of Doamna Ghica passage or of the future subway route connecting Universității Square and Pantelimon are strong investment incentives. 161 West real estate sub-market Next to the East real estate sub-market, the west sub-market also consists mainly in large residential ensembles (bedroom neighborhoods) built starting with the 1960s (most of them were built before the 1980s) and is one of the most densely inhabited areas in Bucharest, providing one of the most significant sale stocks. In terms of affordability, the prices here target the middle-class, with an average value of 1,121 €/sqm for S1 – 2019. The neighborhoods are built based on predefined designs and coordinated by the local authorities at the time and, just like most neighborhoods built before 1990, they have all necessary amenities available - retail buildings, schools, doubled by private investments (large shopping malls - AFI or Plaza Romania, office spaces near AFI shopping mall) or by public investments (Moghioroș Park or a new park along Timișoara Blvd, Ciurel passage or the extension of the subway route towards Drumul Taberei). Although the neighborhoods in this sub-market have different characteristics - Drumul Taberei neighborhood was built in 1960-1975 and it includes variable building heights (low-height apartment blocks within the neighborhood, interstitial green spaces and parking lots), while Militari neighborhood was built in 1977-1994 (high apartment blocks, without green spaces, but with access to subway transport - the east-west route) - the average prices registered are comparable: 1,096.05 €/sqm for Drumul Taberei and 1,052.87 €/sqm for Militari. Real estate websites only mention Drumul Taberei and Militari areas, without other sub-areas or neighborhood parts. Therefore, we cannot distinguish prices between two or three different areas in Militari, e.g. Păcii – Lujerului – Gorjului (areas with better accessibility and with prices above the average), or in Drumul Taberei, the area between Favorit and Moghioroș. South real estate sub-market The South real estate is the cheapest among all sub-markets analyzed, registering a value of 1,083 €/sqm in S1-2019. Although it is close to the central area and it benefits from multiple public transport options, this remains the sub-market with the lowest average values in Bucharest (below 1000 €/sqm for S1 – 2019): Giurgiului - 949.54 €/sqm, Rahova - 914.19 €/sqm, Ghencea - 934.46 € - all 3 neighborhoods were developed along the main arterial roads providing access to the city in 1960 - 1988, include high buildings with high population densities, and behind them there are individual house areas. Berceni neighborhood is one of the main residential neighborhoods developed before 1990 and although it is smaller in size than Titan or Drumul Taberei neighborhoods, it has similar features: variable height apartment blocks (between 4 and 10 floors), with enhanced accessibility, which benefitted from private investments (the development of the shopping center Sun Plaza or the renewal of Sudului Square) or from public investments (the subway passage from Sudului Square or the extension of the subway route with another station - to ensure the mobility of inhabitants in the newly-developed residential areas in Popești Leordeni and Berceni). Berceni area has provided an extremely rich land stock for real estate developments. Thus, IMGB – Luica has become a development pole for retail centers and later on a residential development area. 162 Analysis of indicators by sector. While the analysis of residential real estate sub-markets is specific and useful for real estate analysis, because it determines potential city growth directions, the analysis of indicators by sector is a useful instrument for the public administration. One may argue that the real estate sub-market analysis is sufficient, but we must specify from the very beginning that the central area (Centre sub-market) is divided between sectors, except for Sector 6, and this influences the average price values; therefore, this analysis will provide a slightly different perspective from the previous one. This analysis is also interesting in terms of development opportunities for each sector and for the entire city, investments correlated to the population needs and to the intentions of the public authorities. The analysis of the residential market by sectors revealed the following relevant aspects: • Sector 1 registered the highest average prices throughout the reference period (2008-2019 S1), followed by Sectors 2 and 3. The preference manifested by investors or by inhabitants for the North area made Sector 1 one of the most expensive sectors in real estate terms. Sector 1 includes some of the most attractive neighborhoods, such as Kiseleff-Aviatorilor, Dorobanți, Floreasca, and it also hosts the central business district (CBD). The preservation of high housing prices in Sector 1 (except for 1 Mai area, for example) was favored by the existence of quality housing stock the value of which did not drop below the market level (see Aviației neighborhood), by the presence of vast natural areas/green/leisure spaces (Herăstrău Park, for example), but also by the private investments in the construction of new office spaces / residential buildings which, due to their positioning, imposed compliance with high performance indicators on the quality of housing spaces (surfaces, green spaces, amenities etc.). Sector 1 is also the sector with the highest average income registered in Bucharest (the only areas with population with income below the average are Străulești and Giulești - shared with Sector 6). • Sector 2 is quite heterogeneous, consisting in neighborhoods which have developed fast in the past years (see the development of the Pipera-Dimitrie Pompeiu business district, which also impacted the real estate market in Sector 1 - with significant apartment price increases in Aviației neighborhood) and in bedroom neighborhoods, with plummeting market share (see Pantelimon neighborhood). The business district presence raised the income average in the neighborhood, without shaping a trend. Most of the population with above average income is placed in the central ring, and this distorts the entire market. • Sector 3 is quite heterogeneous, just like Sector 2, consisting in neighborhoods which have developed fast in the past years (see the development of the business node Timpuri Noi) and in bedroom neighborhoods (like Titan). Unlike Sector 2, the market share of apartments in Dristor or Vitan Nou / Baba Novac neighborhoods did not decrease, as they registered constant increase. Also, the investments in public spaces (interstitial green spaces, green spaces along the boulevards) contributed to the increased attractiveness of this sector, which encouraged the extension of the residential neighborhood of Titan along Pallady Blvd, for example. Here as well, most of the population with above average income is placed in the central ring, and this distorts the entire market. • Sector 4 is also heterogeneous, including both some of the central area and bedroom neighborhoods. The survey conducted under IUDS for Sectors 4, 5 and 6 indicated that the average income is below EUR 700, and the difference between the average income registered in Sector 1 and in Sector 4 reaches EUR 120. This aspect has influenced the development of the neighborhoods, as most private investments were made outside their boundaries, favoring areas such as Popești-Leordeni or Berceni. The differences between neighborhoods are quite obvious: Timpuri Noi - Tineretului neighborhood, due to its location within the central ring and to its proximity to the Tineretului Park, concentrates a population with income above average, while Giurgiului neighborhood, located on the verge of Sector 5, concentrates an elderly, low-income population. 163 • Sector 5 indicators are distorted by the presence of neighborhoods polarizing a population with income above average (e.g. Cotroceni neighborhood, with the Panduri / 13 Septembrie extension) and a population with low and very low income (e.g. Rahova neighborhood, with its sub-area of Ferentari, impacted by extreme poverty). Private investments in vast office or residential developments are still incipient (for example, the office buildings Afi Tech Park or Green Gate), despite large size free plots of land. • Sector 6 is perhaps the most homogeneous one from a residential perspective, being dominated by the presence of large neighborhoods built in 1960-1990. Private investments, in the area adjacent to the A2 highway, focused mainly on logistics or manufacturing activities, and less on office spaces. The high accessibility, as access gateway from the West (from Pitești, on A3) favored residential developments on the verge of the city boundaries, and such investments lowered the prices offered for housing in the existing neighborhoods. Thus, the sector hosts the population with the lowest income registered at city level, without any benchmark neighborhoods. Figure 143. New residential developments, completed or under construction in 2018-2021, classified by selling price and by average price per sector Source: The authors. In terms of apartment types, we note the following: • For studios - the most significant average price increases were registered in Sector 1 and Sector 2 (in 2016-2018), followed by Sectors 3 and 4. The increase in the average price in Sector 6 has been relatively constant since 2014, about 5%, favored by the presence of the Regie student campus and of the Politehnica University. 164 • For 2-room apartments - the most significant average price increases were registered in Sector 1 and Sector 2 (in 2016-2018), without much exceeding the average values registered by the other sectors. Due to the First House Program, the demand for 2-room apartments still exceeds the supply (the average price of a 2-room apartment can be covered by a mortgage loan guaranteed by the state - more specifically EUR 65,000). • For 3-room apartments, the most significant average price increases were registered in Sector 3 (with a peak level in 2017), followed by Sectors 2, 5 and 6. This is a special segment, targeting families with children which, as obvious, are trying to relocate in better equipped areas (especially in terms of education institutions). • The 4-room apartment market, as indicated by the previous analyses, has been the most stable category during the reference period. Obviously, this market was also impacted by the decline in prices after the real estate boom, however, being a niche market which targets a population segment with average and above average income (due to the high acquisition price), it maintained its niche customers, as the available stocks are much smaller compared to the 2-room and 3-room apartment stocks, which account for the majority stock. For this segment, the best evolution by far was registered by Sector 5, more specifically, the central part of the city. All other sectors registered about 5%-6% increases in the average price. 165 Figure 144. Number of dwellings completed in 2016 (INS-DRS) and average population income (June 2019, according to IUDS surveys), by sector Source: INS-DRS data processing and IUDS surveys. Analysis of indicators by real estate advertisement area. We can note certain relevant aspects in terms of price evolution in each real estate advertisement area. • The neighborhoods located in the premium area (for example, those in the Northern part of the Capital) have seen the lowest decline compared to 2008, and maintained their position in the buyers’ preferences. The numerous investments in class A office buildings, the pole of office and retail buildings defined in Pipera – Aviației area (due to the availability of land with no constructions and to the enhanced accessibility) inevitably attracted residential development as well, and enabled the area to maintain its high value for the existing stock as well. While in 2008-2010 the developments focused on 3 or 4-storey buildings, the new ones favored larger sizes, both in terms of height and in number of apartments (we can mention here developments such as Metropolitan Aviației, New Point, UpGround, Laguna Residence, Belvedere Residence, North Park, Aviației Park, Aviației Tower, One etc.). Aviației neighborhood will remain an extremely popular area, especially for the young people who work in the office buildings in the area. Also located in the North, 1 Mai (Mihalache) 166 neighborhood is a distinct area, which witnessed little price decrease in 2008-2019, as it was an area with new “boutique” residential projects including 10 to 30 units, which also hosted some new larger residential projects (like Domenii Park and Arcadia). • The residential areas built before 1990, such as Drumul Taberei, Militari, Titan, Berceni, Colentina or Pantelimon neighborhoods, still target the middle-class population, with the highest existing apartment stock. Although all neighborhoods benefit from the same initial amenities, the evolution of each neighborhood as shaped by the sub-markets determined their more or less attractive positioning in the real estate market. • Drumul Taberei and Militari, two of the most densely populated neighborhoods, with an estimated population of approx. 600,000 inhabitants still attract new developments, due to the public investments in the subway network. They have faced a steep price decline during the reference period, compared to 2008, and now register an upward trend due to the new residential developments (which will contribute even more to neighborhoods densification - those with more than 50,000 inhabitants). In Drumul Taberei, new latest developments are Gran Via Park, Moghioroș Park Residence, Drumul Taberei Residence, Timișoara 58, together with many other small-sized projects scattered in the neighborhood. In Militari area, the latest developments are Rotar Park, 10 Blocks, and the projects under the umbrella of 21 Residence – Politehnica, Lujerului; here as well, there are many small-sized projects adjacent to Iuliu Maniu Boulevard and Uverturii Boulevard. The supply here is very much balanced by the apartment stock built before 1990. 133 • The East neighborhoods, Colentina and Pantelimon, were also affected by the price decline. In Colentina, we note an extension of the crisis until the end of 2015, with the average price dropped below EUR 900/sqm, and the recovery was extremely slow in the past 3-4 years. There are few significant private investments: Rose Garden (located on Șos. Colentina), Planorama or Romfelt Plaza/renamed Doamna Ghica Plaza, NeoPeninsula; Citta Residential Park is the newest and the largest residential project in Pantelimon, together with Vivenda project, which is located right at the borderline with Titan neighborhood. • Titan neighborhood, which hosts approximately 400,000 inhabitants, was built around IOR Park. In the case of Titan neighborhood, which in 2008 registered an average price of EUR 2,100/sqm - the highest in the Eastern area, we can note a constant decrease until the minimum of EUR 950/sqm at the end of 2014. After the launch of the First House Program, Titan neighborhood has provided one of the most substantial residential offers for buyers. Thus, in the past years, Theodor Pallady has been the fastest developing area in Bucharest (which was facilitated by the enhanced accessibility - wide boulevard, subway and above ground public transport along T. Pallady Boulevard and access to A3, doubled by the availability of generous plots of land), with medium- and large-sized projects (Pallady Towers, Metropolitan, Pallady Residence etc.). • Adjacent to Titan neighborhood, we note the development of the Dristor/Vitan Nou neighborhood, with the new insertions in Mihai Bravu area, due to the pillar investment – Asmita Gardens. In Dristor/Vitan Nou neighborhood we note a constant price increase since 2014, due to the new investments implemented in the area (Mihai Bravu passage way and Park Lake shopping mall – Titan neighborhood boundary); such investments started reviving the area, and gave it a strong residential structure (formerly commercial). 133Moreover, the new real estate projects built at the periphery of Bucharest in the past years have capitalised on the established reputation of the neighbourhoods, and have tried to use the location in their promotional activities. Consequently, the statistics of selling prices also included property adjacent to the actual neighbourhood, but promoted as part of that neighbourhood - the statistics of Militari neighbourhood surely includes offers from other administrative- territorial units, such as Chiajna or Dudu; similarly for Drumul Taberei, which surely includes offers from Prelungirea Ghencea (which belongs to Bragadiru). This aspect related to the data collection methodology is important, because it can influence significantly the price variations for a certain area. 167 • The neighborhoods in the Southern area are still the most affordable, and were most affected by the post-real estate boom period. The statistics of the real estate market analyzed in 2008- 2019 indicate that after the prices plummeted in the 3 areas (Giurgiului, Rahova and Ghencea) they have never recovered, and no prerequisites have been created for a future upward evolution. No large investment was made in these neighborhoods, and the new housing supply is limited to punctual insertions on available plots of land. Figure 145. Evolution of average sale prices 2019 versus 2008, by type of apartment, by real estate advertisement area Studios - average price evolution 2008 - S1 versus 2019 - S1 Parcul Carol (Cantemir-Marasesti) Victoriei-Romana-Universitate Decebal-Calea Calarasilor Tineretului-Timpuri Noi 13 Septembrie-Panduri Grivitei-Gara de Nord Iancului-Mihai Bravu Dorobanti-Floreasca Herastrau-Nordului Dristor-Vitan Vechi Kiseleff-Aviatorilor Stefan Cel Mare Dacia-Eminescu Drumul Taberei Bucurestii Noi Necunoscuta Pantelimon Ferdinand Vitan Nou Giurgiului Cotroceni Colentina Ghencea Crangasi Baneasa Mosilor Giulesti Aviatiei Berceni Rahova Militari Pipera 1 Mai Unirii Titan Tei 0% -10% -15% -20% -30% -33% -40% -36% -36% -39% -39% -39% -39% -39% -40% -41% -42% -42% -43% -43% -44% -44% -45% -45% -45% -45% -50% -45% -46% -46% -48% -48% -48% -48% -48% -48% -48% -53% -60% -55% -58% -70% 168 -60% -50% -30% -20% -10% -40% 0% -50% -40% -30% -20% -60% -10% 0% -32% 1 Mai -42% 1 Mai -46% 13 Septembrie-Panduri -44% 13 Septembrie-Panduri -28% Aviatiei -36% Aviatiei -35% Baneasa -37% Baneasa -44% Berceni -48% Berceni -35% Bucurestii Noi -39% Bucurestii Noi -42% Colentina -47% Colentina -49% Cotroceni -38% Cotroceni -41% Crangasi -40% Crangasi -31% Dacia-Eminescu -37% Dacia-Eminescu -43% Decebal-Calea Calarasilor -37% Decebal-Calea Calarasilor -37% Dorobanti-Floreasca -21% Dorobanti-Floreasca -40% Dristor-Vitan Vechi -34% Dristor-Vitan Vechi -45% Drumul Taberei -41% Drumul Taberei -44% Ferdinand -36% Ferdinand -50% Ghencea -47% Ghencea -40% Giulesti -43% Giulesti -49% Giurgiului 169 -45% Giurgiului -40% Grivitei-Gara de Nord -37% Grivitei-Gara de Nord -23% Herastrau-Nordului -19% Herastrau-Nordului -41% Iancului-Mihai Bravu -38% Iancului-Mihai Bravu -39% Kiseleff-Aviatorilor -17% Kiseleff-Aviatorilor -47% Militari -44% Militari -47% Mosilor -36% Mosilor -46% Necunoscuta -47% Necunoscuta -43% Pantelimon -43% Pantelimon -41% Parcul Carol (Cantemir-… 3-room apartments - average price evolution 2008 - S1 versus 2019 - S1 2-room apartments - average price evolution 2008 - S1 versus 2019 - S1 -28% Parcul Carol (Cantemir-… -32% Pipera -18% Pipera -46% Rahova -45% Rahova -39% Stefan Cel Mare -30% Stefan Cel Mare -39% Tei -35% Tei -39% Tineretului-Timpuri Noi -36% Tineretului-Timpuri Noi -45% Titan -40% Titan -41% Unirii -40% Victoriei-Romana-Universitate -39% Unirii -39% Vitan Nou -33% Victoriei-Romana-Universitate -35% Vitan Nou 0% -5% -50% -45% -40% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -26% 1 Mai -43% 13 Septembrie-Panduri -25% Aviatiei -30% Baneasa -37% Berceni -32% Bucurestii Noi -34% Colentina -27% Cotroceni -36% Crangasi -32% Dacia-Eminescu -43% Decebal-Calea Calarasilor -17% Dorobanti-Floreasca -35% Dristor-Vitan Vechi -39% Drumul Taberei -22% Ferdinand -37% Ghencea Giulesti 170 -47% Giurgiului -40% Grivitei-Gara de Nord -13% Herastrau-Nordului -39% Iancului-Mihai Bravu -28% Kiseleff-Aviatorilor -39% Militari -41% Mosilor -42% Necunoscuta -40% Pantelimon +4-room apartments - average price evolution 2008 - S1 versus 2019 - S1 -21% Parcul Carol (Cantemir-Marasesti) -23% Pipera -43% Rahova -24% Stefan Cel Mare -30% Tei Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. -33% Tineretului-Timpuri Noi -38% Titan -37% Unirii -22% Victoriei-Romana-Universitate -33% Vitan Nou Table 9. Price evolution S01/2008 versus S01/2019 by real estate advertisement area Studio 2-room apartment 3-room apartment 4-room apartment ground floor/last ground floor/last ground floor/last ground floor/last average price average price average price average price floor average floor average floor average floor average selling price selling price selling price selling price mid-floor - mid-floor - mid-floor - mid-floor - Neighborhood 1 Mai - 43.19% - 35.06% - 35.55% - 49.62% - 13.64% - 20.71% - 20% - 19.57% (Domenii) 13 septembrie - 47.06% - 47.16% - 43.02% - 45.19% - 51.54% - 46.17% - 43.43% - 55.02% Aviației - 28.57% - 6.96% - 37.56% - 32.35% - 26.84% - 24.39% 18.48% 9.62% Băneasa - 48% - 29.73% - 48.13% - 38.71% - 25% - 30.02% 26.8% - 4.42% Berceni - 51.37% - 50% - 47% - 47.12% - 39.53% - 42.31% - 39.31% - 36.7% Bucureștii Noi - 40% - 35.92% - 40.37% - 40.43% - 37.67% - 35.96% - 38.3% - 56.94% Colentina - 55.42% - 47.88 - 48.7% - 46.9% - 40.23% - 42.86% - 37.58% - 38.71% Cotroceni - 64.76% - 59.09% - 47.31% - 45.92% - 52.68% - 53.51% - 47.55% 5.26% Crângași - 42.41% - 41.38% - 34.25% - 41.39% - 42.48% - 40.74% - 46.26% - 37.74% Dacia- - 56.63% - 55.21% - 45.45% - 38% - 12.11% - 32.17% - 29.69% - 38.29% Eminescu Decebal-Calea - 48% - 46.67% - 37.02% - 37.5% - 34.21% - 35.81% - 42.86% - 44.44% Călărașilor Dorobanți- - 28.49% - 41.41% - 37.93% - 25.32% - 27.66% - 7.56% 5% 15.48% Floreasca Dristor- Vitanul - 42.31% - 42.21% - 42.11% - 42.92% - 41.43% - 36.24% - 38.71% - 30.3% Vechi Drumul Taberei - 48.49% - 43.14% - 50% - 45% - 46.89% - 43.85% - 46.25% - 42.4% Ferdinand - 44.3% - 49.38% - 46.85% - 48.08% - 35.78% - 30.91% - 30.27% - 3.33% Ghencea - 22.22% - 53.69% - 51.69% - 52.26% - 42.19% - 47.35% - 54.36% - 17.27% Giulești - 33.33% - 53.24% - 37.99% - 44.79% - 50.4% - 49.16% - - Giurgiului - 58.55% - 55.26% - 47.73% - 50% - 49.6% - 49.15% - - 38.93% Griviței- Gara - 51.62% - 50.35% - 51% - 43.2% - 31.77% - 46.99% - 35.16% - 58.99% de Nord Herăstrău - - 20% - 66.86% - 44.51% - 43.1% - 8.51% - 34.88% - 11.56% - 29.81% Nordului Iancului-Mihai - 41.56% - 44.02% - 41.67% - 35.17% - 32.21% - 39.31% - 29.71% - 37.86% Bravu Kiseleff- - - 54.55% - 35.48% - 39.51% - 14.97% - 1.53% - 10.28% - 10.43% Aviatorilor Militari - 48.03% - 51.33% - 50.96% - 46.23% - 46.92% - 43.61% - 43.48% - 43.33% Moșilor - 39.8% - 44.57% - 56.88% - 42.86% - 8.82% - 39.28% - 55.92% - 41.88% Pantelimon - 57.33% - 48% - 38.89% - 45% - 43.1% - 43.3% - 35.61% - 42.9% Carol Park - 43.25 - 35 - 35 -32 - 15.28% 3.79% - 54.56% - 14.01% (Cantemir- Mărășești) Pipera 20.88% 17.54% 10.53% - 42.57% - 41.46% - 41.24% - 16.67% - 25.65% Rahova - 60.74% - 54.93% - 49.79% - 48% - 50% - 47.15% - 42.38% - 42.86% Stefan cel - 41.62% - 25.63% - 27.5% - 36.27% 0% - 27.02% - 29.17% - 4.68% Mare Tei - 38.96% - 39.87% - 45.18% - 42.82% - 37.6% - 39.29% - 45.71% - 44.12% Tineretului- - 41.49% - 32.58% - 44.81% - 41.61% - 26.25% - 36.47% - 41.03% - 38.33% Timpuri Noi Titan - 45.34% - 47.68% - 47.62% - 44.55% - 42.19% - 40.91% - 42% - 42.53% Unirii - 47% - 39.25% - 45.79% - 36.11% - 35.45% - 34.48% - 34.69% - 27.78% 171 Studio 2-room apartment 3-room apartment 4-room apartment ground floor/last ground floor/last ground floor/last ground floor/last average price average price average price average price floor average floor average floor average floor average selling price selling price selling price selling price mid-floor - mid-floor - mid-floor - mid-floor - Neighborhood Victoriei- - 46.86% - 43.67% - 44.63% - 45% - 34.34% - 24.1% - 8.3% - 29.42% Romană- Universitate Vitanul Nou - 44.25% - 38.71% - 37.5% - 39.29% - 51.5% - 30.57% - 35.1% - 39.74% Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. 172 Figure 146. Average prices by real estate advertisement area (EUR for m2) for studios, 2-, 3- and +4-room apartments (S01/2019) Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. 173 Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. 174 Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. 175 Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. 176 Analysis of the First House Program Implementation Impact. The First House Program134 was launched in the financial-banking market on May 20, 2009, pursuant to the Emergency Ordinance no. 60, following the real estate crisis, and was equally supported by the strategic developers active at the time, and by the state institutions which wanted economic recovery. Consequently, this program had a double impact: (1) first and foremost, it was a social measure to enable people buying their first house to access favorable mortgage loans, and (2) at the same time, it was a measure to revive the real estate market which was facing the most severe crisis ever, at national level. This type of program is used in many Western European countries and it has as a decade-long tradition as a social program targeting especially young first-time buyers. At national level, 24,300 dwellings were purchased during the first year after the program was launched, and the average purchase price was about EUR 36,000. By the end of 2018, FNGCIMM reported more than 260,000 guarantees granted and promised for housing purchases at national level. With time, the program has seen various amendments, and in 2019 it reached the following individual guarantee caps135: • For the purchase of new or consolidated houses (acceptance upon completion of construction works dated more than 5 years before the loan application) - EUR 66,500 at the most; • For the construction of individual dwellings, EUR 66,500 at the most, not exceeding the value indicated by the cost estimate for the performance of works, annex to the house building contract; • For the construction of collective dwellings, EUR 72,500 at the most, not exceeding the value indicated by the cost estimate for the performance of works; • For the purchase of other housing categories (acceptance upon completion of construction works dated more than 5 years before the loan application) - EUR 57,000 at the most; This is considered the most successful program launched by authorities, even though there have been various amendments aimed at setting loan granting procedures and at implementing new rules, imposed by the program evolution and development. In 2019, the First House Program is implemented by 15 banks which support the it: BRD-GSG, BCR, Banca Transilvania, CEC Bank, ING Bank, Raiffeisen Bank, OTP Bank, Banca Românească, Garanti Bank, Unicredit Bank, Intesa Sanpaolo Bank, Marfin Bank, Credit Agricole, Leumi Bank and First Bank. Due to its volume, the First House Program led to the development of real estate products which fit a pattern. It is expected that in the forthcoming period the influence of the social program should diminish, as a consequence of the parallel existence of new mortgage products launched by commercial banks. Beyond the interbank rate competition, what mattered most for the applicants for this loan instrument was the 5% advance payment, much lower than the threshold of a classical mortgage loan, where the threshold ranges between 15% and 30%. Beyond the advantages and the benefits of this program, there has also been some criticism, especially against the EUR 66,500 cap which actually led to an artificial maintenance of prices at a quotation which had nothing to do with the market reality, without allowing the market the self-regulation option, as for any free market. What is certain is that the demand analysis on the residential segment shows that the existing stock have never been able to match the demand, and the purchase powered has always suffered due to the 134 The “First House” Programme is a governmental programme aiming to facilitate the access of individuals to buying or building a house, using state-guaranteed loans. The guarantees granted under the Programme are guarantees by and on behalf of the state, and the guarantee percentage depends on the housing category: 40% for houses which have been in use for periods longer than 5 years from the acceptance to the completion of new construction works or of interventions to consolidate the building/mitigate the seismic risk, as appropriate, for purchase purposes, including those built under ANL programmes; 50% for new houses for sale, including those built under ANL programmes, for which the acceptance documents upon completion of new construction works are dated 5 years at the most before the loan application date - see the fngcimm.ro website. 135 see website fngcimm.ro / accessed in January 2019 177 lack of loan instruments in the market. At some point, the First House Program was the only instrument which could support both the beneficiaries and the developers. At its core a social program, due to its large scale implementation without a very clear definition of the maximum income of the program beneficiaries, the First House Program had a huge influence on the real estate market by balancing and compensating for the lack of loan instruments in a certain period, and further it turned into a loan instrument which enabled access to housing according to the price levels (capped under the First House Program and adopted by real estate developers.) In other countries, where the middle-class is sufficiently developed, this program has a tradition, and it has never ceased. There have been countries like Italy where the professional associations launched national programs in the real estate field (the FIAIP initiative - the Italian Federation of Professional Realtors which launched the national program “Se riparte l’immobiliare, riparte l’Italia”, where the revival of the real estate market was compared to the economic recovery of the country). The First House Program should be a stability factor, providing young people with support, as social and economic foundation, and the market with continuity and support as the current market, although self- regulated, lacks diversified mortgage products (with a much stronger social role). After the real estate crises started in 2008, with the launch of the First House Program and with the adoption of the Law allowing for the sale of certain new dwellings with a lower - only 5% - VAT rate, a new product was launched in the market: apartments which matched the parameters established by the above-mentioned legislation. This explains the overall average price increases after 2014, when more and more projects were launched, the new projects targeting specifically to sell units with the 5% VAT, especially since old housing could also be purchased under the Program. Thus, the analysis of the mortgage loans granted under the First House Program, based on data provided by the National Loan Guarantee Fund for SMEs, indicates that 61,111 loans were granted for Bucharest and 24,307 loans were granted for Ilfov County in 2009-2018. The distribution of loans granted, according to the number of rooms, indicates, as expected, a maximum value for loans granted for purchasing 2-room apartments (47,600 total loans granted for Bucharest and Ilfov County during the reference period). Compared to Ilfov County, Bucharest exceeds all indicators registered, except for loans granted to purchase 4-room apartments. Figure 147. Number of loans granted under the First House Program in 2009-2018, for Bucharest City and Ilfov County Source: Processing of data made available by FNGCIMM with letter RCP 1643 06.06.2019. The distribution by Bucharest sectors reveals a high concentration of loans granted under the Program in sectors 3 and 6, with approximately 50% of the total credits granted; Sector 1 reported the lowest number of loans granted under this Program (10%). These statistical data overlap the sectors with the highest housing density - where the transaction values are close to the maximum loan value. 178 The highest share of loans granted in the city was for 2-room apartments - more than 55% of the total loans granted under the Program, followed by loans for 3-room apartments - approximately 30%. Figure 148. Number of loans granted under the First House Program in 2009-2018 for Bucharest and their distribution by type of apartment for which the loan was granted Source: Processing of data made available by FNGCIMM with letter RCP 1643 06.06.2019. Figure 149. Number of loans granted under the First House Program in 2009-2018 for Bucharest and their distribution by type of apartment for which the loan was granted Source: Processing of data made available by FNGCIMM with letter RCP 1643 06.06.2019. By building age, the loan distribution favor buildings which were older than 5 years old when the guarantee was granted - which indicates that a small percentage of the population could afford an advance payment exceeding 5% to purchase a house exceeding the cap level imposed by the Program. Consequently, over 60% of the houses purchased under the First House Program, in 2009-2018, both in Bucharest and in Ilfov County, were old houses. 179 Figure 150. Number of loans granted under the First House Program in 2009-2018, for Bucharest and their distribution by building age Source: Processing of data made available by FNGCIMM with letter RCP 1643 06.06.2019. While in Sectors 5, 4 and 2 the shares of new and old apartments are relatively equal for the loans granted under the Program, in the other 2 sectors the number of old apartments purchased was almost double (due to a very generous existing stock and to a gradual renewal of such housing stock). Figure 151. Number of loans granted under the First House Program in 2009-2018, by sector, and their distribution by building age Source: Processing of data made available by FNGCIMM with letter RCP 1643 06.06.2019. Social housing stock Bucharest also registers a very significant number of social housing applications: 20,000 registered both with PMB and with sector municipalities136, most applicants belonging to social risk categories: people with very low income, elderly, people who lost their homes as a result of restitutions, people with disabilities or single-parent families. When compared to the supply of available units, here the demand also exceeds by far the availability in the residential market. The housing stock developed under the Program implemented by ANL, a Program which targets young people aged 18 to 35 years old when they submit the application for rental of housing built under the 136 https://www.mediafax.ro/social/gabriela-firea-in-bucuresti-sunt-20-000-de-cereri-pentru-locuinte-sociale- 18783316 180 ANL Programs, persons who cannot afford to buy or rent in the free market137 also proves insufficient. They are located at: The Program for construction of housing with a mortgage loan138 Locations accepted in the period of 2000 – 28.06.2017 No. of housing units accepted / Locality Location Height delivered to beneficiaries 187 Ion Mihalache Blvd S+P+8(9)E 37 DS+P+1E, 67-79 Parcului Str. 124 P+1E Sector 1 Fabrica de Cărămidă Str. P+1E 90 Henri Coandă Neighborhood - P+1E(+M) 182 houses 31 Cernăuți Str. P+4E 100 Sector 2 28-30 Maior Băcilă Vasile Str. S+P+3E+M 83 65-67 Baicului Str. P+4E 80 Vitioara Str. P+1E 42 BUCHAREST Unirii Blvd F3 S+P+M+8E 75 Sector 3 Unirii Blvd G1, tr. 4 S+P+M+7E 20 Unirii Blvd G1, tr. 5 S+P+M+10E 32 Max. Popper Str. - bl. F6 S+P+8E 60 3 Aleea Potaisa P+4E 60 P+4E 397 Brâncuși Neighborhood P+E 133 Sector 6 22 Sos Virtuții bl R10 P+8E 101 P+1E+M, 16A Intrarea Godeni 103 P+2E+M Apeductului Str. P+4E 55 Henri Coandă Neighborhood - bl. A22 (lot 712), A26 (lot 721), bl. A21 P+3E+M 15 ILFOV Voluntari (lot 700) and bl. A27 (lot 754) Henri Coandă Neighborhood - P+1E(+M) 236 houses LOCATIONS ACCEPTED 2001-31.12.2019 UNDER THE PROGRAM “YOUTH HOUSING FOR RENT”139 BUCHAREST Sector 3 3-5 Aleea Cioplea, (Dorms 1 and 2)+ modernization 90 Alexander von Humbold Str. 62 4 Aleea Cioplea 50 170 -174 Şos.Gării Cățelu 90 Sector 2 Colentina Hospital, Bl. Ştefan cel Mare 21 100 Maior Băcilă Str., 1st floor 83 Maior Băcilă Str., 4th floor 83 Maior Băcilă Str., 3rd floor 83 Sector 4 Tonitza Neighborhood 219 Şos. Olteniței, Area I, block Z1.3 11 Tonitza Neighborhood 219 Şos. Olteniței, block ZI1, phase I, block Z.I.2 72 Sector 6 Brâncuși Neighborhood, Valea Oltului - Timișoara Blvd, area A, phase 1 204 Brâncuși Neighborhood, Valea Oltului - Timișoara Blvd, area A, phase 2 204 Brâncuși Neighborhood, Valea Oltului - Timișoara Blvd, area A, phase 3 182 Brâncuși Neighborhood, Valea Oltului - Timișoara Blvd, area A, phase 4 182 Brâncuși Neighborhood, Valea Oltului - Timișoara Blvd, area A, phase 5 204 Brâncuși Neighborhood, Valea Oltului - Timișoara Blvd, area A, phase 6 204 137 https://www.anl.ro/ro/locuinte-pentru-tineri/ 138 https://www.anl.ro/ro/locuinte-pentru-tineri/ 139 https://www.anl.ro/ro/locuinte-pentru-tineri/ 181 LOCATIONS ACCEPTED 2001-31.12.2019 UNDER THE PROGRAM “YOUTH HOUSING FOR RENT”139 Brâncuși Neighborhood, Valea Oltului - Timișoara Blvd, area A, phase 8 128 Brâncuși Neighborhood, Valea Oltului - Timișoara Blvd, area C, phase 1, bl. C1.7, 150 C1.8, C1.1 Sector 6 Brâncuși Neighborhood, Valea Oltului - Timișoara Blvd, area C, phase 7, block 112 C1.12, C1.9 Brâncuși Neighborhood, Valea Oltului - Timișoara Blvd, area C, phase 9, block 109 C1.13, C1.14 Total free units BUCHAREST 2.440 For the locations which are in the rental stock, the law allows tenants to purchase them which can lead to a change in the housing destination in the long run, if they become private property. The housing stock owned by ANL is insufficient compared to the demand and, moreover, as presented by ANL, the stock of units which had not been contracted with mortgage loans is mostly located in the Henri Coandă neighborhood and it sells for prices ranging between EUR 54,949 and EUR 168,758 (VAT included), which places them in the category of less affordable housing, if we consider an average monthly income of RON 4,050/EUR 862. Consequently, the shortage of social housing/housing affordable for underprivileged categories was largely covered through the acquisitions under the First House Program. The direct results of this situation meant that the average price of a 2-room apartment was capped at about EUR 65,000 in Bucharest and in its peri-urban area, by the development of areas with affordable housing, but without adequate services and amenities. 6.4.2 Office market In 2019, Bucharest registered a stock of approximately 3 million sqm of modern office spaces, of which about 75% are class A offices, which means a density of approximately 1,590 sqm GLA / 1000 inhabitants. The spaces delivered in the first semester of 2019, more than 190,000 sqm, exceeded by more than 14% the total values reported for 2018. The prime rent remained stable in the first semester of 2019 - an average value of EUR 18.5/sqm. The vacancy rate dropped at an all-time low of 8.2% at the end of 2018, and then increased at 9.2 in 2019, due to the new space deliveries. The vacancy rate remained relatively stable until de end of 2019, due to the counterbalancing between the new housing supply and the new demand. The vacancy rates still show an uneven distribution by sub-markets, which is reflected in the rent price evolution. This continuing development is supported by an increasing demand for modern office spaces, due to the development of the IT industry and to the increase in the number of employees in the IT and services sectors. Moreover, the residential real estate development has kept pace with the office space development, with private investment dictating the development direction of an area (for example, the Pipera area or, more recently, the Exhibition Boulevard area). While in the early ‘90s the office buildings were concentrated in the central and semi-central areas, the market evolution meant the diversification and the increase in the number of office sub-markets, mostly developed along the public transport routes (the subway is a strategic component). This is the right approach, which follows the improved accessibility and home-workplace flows. Nevertheless, it also meant an overload for the existing infrastructure, which has not always kept pace with the economic growth. 182 Figure 152. Demand, by tenant sector of activity Source: Data processing https://content.knightfrank.com/research/1856/documents/en/romania-market- report-h1-2019-6705.pdf. 183 Figure 153. Location of office buildings built after 1990 Source: The authors. Thus, the office market in Bucharest is one of the most spectacular niches in the real estate market, from multiple perspectives: • Due to the investments made in such developments, which generally entail millions of Euro; starting from utilities to the last details of finishes and amenities, all these make the office space development a niche development, in general, precisely due to the complexity of the field, to the financing conditions and last, but not least, to the market notoriety; • The changes made to the urban landscape, by creating new architectural landmarks which shape the city silhouette, as well as adjacent spaces developed to be attractive; • Due to job creation (both in the construction and in the operation stages); 184 • Due to the development of the adjacent areas, as they polarize neighboring areas and foster the proliferation of other support functions, such as residential, commercial or leisure (gyms, cafes, restaurants etc.). The graphic below indicates an upward trend since 2010, with more than 1 million sqm office spaces delivered only in 2014-2019. Figure 154. Annual evolution of modern office building stocks (million m2) in 2010-S01/2019, for Bucharest City Source: Adapted after https://content.knightfrank.com/research/1856/documents/en/romania-market- report-h1-2019-6705.pdf. One of the differences highlighted by the office market analysis, compared to the residential market, is given by the fact that the residential market includes “off plan” investments - followed by transactions for something to be developed, while in the office space market the transactions are performed upon completion of construction works. Just like in the case of the residential market, there are variations in the office space market between figures announced and actual figures, between floor areas delivered versus those estimated, and here we see the intervention of quite many factors (both external and internal). For 2016, the following aspects are relevant: • The delivery of 30 new buildings, with class A and B+ office spaces, with surfaces ranging from 6,000 sqm to 40,000 sqm; most of them are new phases within large projects, and will develop along several years; among them, we mention The Bridge, Business Garden Bucharest, Oregon Park, Globalworth Campus, Expo Business Park and The Light. • In terms of locations, 2019 brought more diversification, with new spaces in modern buildings, strengthening or shaping new poles: (1) already recognized poles - Grozăvești – Politehnică - Orhideea and Aviației - Barbu Văcărescu - Pipera, with advanced construction projects, (2) new poles like the areas of Expoziției, Militari – Preciziei - Păcii and Timpuri Noi - Tineretului. • Four office buildings were finalized in the first quarter of 2019: Renault Bucharest Connected, in the area of Militari – Preciziei – Păcii, and in the area of Politehnică - Grozăvești - Orhideea all three office buildings in the Business Garden Bucharest were completed simultaneously, covering a total surface of 41,000 sqm class A office spaces. • Among the buildings completed in the second quarter of 2019, besides the office building The Light - The Light I (21,000 sqm), it is interesting to note the development of green spaces, such as The Bridge II, located in the Centre-West area (total surface of 20,200 sqm), a building with sustainable characteristics and low energy consumption according to LEED Platinum international standards, which has very few spaces left available for rent; 185 • In the Centre-North area there are spaces available for pre-rent, which will be delivered in the first semester of the next year, last generation projects: Oregon Park Building C, with a total surface of 24,000 sqm and a new project - Area 313, 6,907 sqm (both located on Barbu Văcărescu); • In the Centre-East area, Timpuri Noi Square III will be commissioned - the third phase of the project bearing the same name (20,000 sqm); this building also gained BREEAM Excellent pre- certification (international certification on environmental protection and low energy consumption); • Buildings in Expoziției area were delivered in the third quarter of 2019: the two buildings (2 and 3) under the Expo Business Park were finalized; the following were identified in the North area as well: a boutique office building Caramfil Office Building (total surface of 13,200 sqm) and the first phase of the Equilibrium project (total surface of 20,600 sqm - in the Barbu Văcărescu area). The development of the new district in the Expoziției – Piața Presei Libere area, which sums up more than 80,000 sqm office spaces will place additional pressure on the class B office spaces in the North area or on those in Pipera, a location which is more and more difficult to access. Figure 155. Analysis of indicators by sub-market Source: Real estate statistical data processed. 186 Source: Real estate reports data processed. Table 10. Delivery of office spaces expected for 2020-2022 Project Area Area Completion year Anchor Plaza Metropol 34,500 West 2020 Campus 6 19,810 West 2020 Campus 6 17,581 West 2020 Dacia One 14,000 Centre 2020 Globalworth Campus 30,000 West 2020 Globalworth Square 29,700 2020 Green Court 16,000 2020 Matei Millo Boutique Offices 9,170 Centre 2020 One Tower 23,866 North 2020 Sema Parc C3+C4 West 2020 The Bridge 20,000 2020 Tiriac Tower 20,000 North 2020 AFI Office Extension 15,000 West 2021 AFI Tech Park 22,000 West 2021 Arc Office Building 29,400 2021 Atenor Expozitiei 44,000 North 2021 187 Project Area Area Completion year Equilibrium 19,522 2021 Globalworth Luterana 60,000 Centre 2021 Globalworth Preciziei 60,000 West 2021 Jiului Office 46,580 North 2021 One Cotroceni Park 70,000 Centre 2021 One Verdi 20,000 North 2021 The Light 24,000 North 2021 U-Center 32,500 North 2021 AFI Imax Offices 29,000 2022 Campus 6 22,232 West 2022 City Rose Park 50,000 2021-2022 Source: Adapted after Colliers International data. The analysis of the office space market reveals a clear investor preference for the North area, to the detriment of the South area. The business poles located in the North have strengthened and extended (see the new pole created in the Expoziției Blvd area) - a location favored first and foremost due to the proximity of the international airport Henri Coandă; there have been very few investments in the South or East areas, although both provide access by public transport. The central area and the business district maintain their position in the ranking. The new investments in the West area (both public and private) doubled by the availability of large land plots and the location near large university centers and student campus, opened the opportunity for new investments. The analysis of the rent market values, by areas and class of building, indicates extended margins in most office areas/poles. The differences are given mostly by the distance from the subway stations and by the visibility of each building, and also by the amenities made available to tenants in those buildings. Obviously, there are factors like surface, contractual deadlines, monthly costs which influence the level of the transaction values. Evolution of the office space real estate market in 2014-2018. For 2018, it was expected to have more than 243,000 sqm office spaces finalized in business centers, of which 200,000 sqm were accepted. For example, during the first three quarters of 2018, the newly built and delivered projects reached 133,000 sqm, an 18% increase compared to the same period in 2017 (when 109,000 sqm office spaces had been finalized). More than 73,000 sqm were transacted in the third quarter of 2018. More than half of the transactions were represented by new rental and space extensions needs (15%), pre-rent (8%) and relocations (32%). The rest were re-negotiations. The most active sub-markets in terms of office space rent were: the West area (23%), Pipera (22%), CBD (Victoriei Square, Charles de Gaulle Square (21%) and the Centre area (18%). The most active areas, in terms of total demand, were: the western part of the capital (31%), the Centre area (22%), the North area (16%), Pipera (14%) and CBD (14%). The biggest offer of office spaces in newly accepted buildings in 2018 was identified in the Centre-North area (Aviatorilor – Caranfil – Barbu-Văcărescu) totaling more than 155,000 sqm - approximately 27% of the available stock); followed by the North area (Băneasa, Pipera) with 107,200 sqm, and the Centre- West area, with 73,100 sqm available. A total volume of approximately 144,000 sqm was delivered in 2017, of which 45% in the Centre-West area, unlike previous years, followed by the Centre-North area with 26% and by the Centre-South area with 24%. The volume of transacted spaced in 2017 reached approximately 308,000 sqm, a slight increase compared to the transaction volume in 2016, and 6.6% higher than the average for the 2012- 2015 period. More than 77% projects delivered in 2017 were rented by the end of the year. Mention should be made that of the total volume announced for 2017 (246,000 sqm), the construction of 102 sqm was postponed for the first half of 2018, which meant a significant increase (%) in the project postponement margin. Also of interest is the total lack of office spaces in the East area which benefits from the same amenities and infrastructure (if not better) as the West area; however, it is placed at a 188 considerable distance from the university centers, which has been proven to influence investors’ decision. 2017 brought along some improvements in the office space market for the Centre-South area, where the Timpuri Noi Square project defined a new pole. Companies which chose to locate in TN Square - Phases I and II (and later on, in 2019, in the spaces included in Phase III of the project) considered first and foremost the higher accessibility of the area, enabling employees to shorten the home-work travel time. The level of rent in the business centers was maintained the same as in 2017-2018. At the beginning of 2016, the stock of office spaces available for rent exceeded 824,000 sqm, of which 79% were spaces located in office buildings (class A, B and C) and 21% were located in villas or similar buildings. 49% of the office buildings in Bucharest had spaces available for rent (more specifically, 512 buildings of the total of 1056 buildings class A, B or C). Most of the office space stock (56%) was concentrated within rent segments below EUR 11/sqm, while only 23% accounted for spaces with rent values between EUR 11‐14/sqm, and 20% - rent values exceeding EUR 14.1/sqm. In 2016, the Centre- North area remained the area with the richest supply, more specifically 187,000 sqm, which accounted for one third of the total rental stock (Victoriei Square – Domenii – Aviației – Barbu Văcărescu‐ Dimitirie Pompeiu). 2015 was the year with the lowest volume of spaces delivered (approximately 85,000 sqm) within the 2008-2019 period, due to the postponement (for 2016) of four projects which amounted for more than 90,000 sqm additional office spaces. The volume of transacted spaced in 2015 reached approximately 260,000 sqm, a 15% decrease compared to the transaction volume in 2014, and 7% lower than the average for the past 3 years. 73% of the total rental and pre-rental transactions were reported in the Centre-North area, where Băneasa and Pipera accounted for shares between 6-12%. The lowest transaction volumes (2% / 4%) were registered in the East and South areas, where the office space segment is significantly less developed. 2014 confirmed that the offer of quality office spaces available for pre-rent will boost the transaction pace. In 2014, the demand for office spaces continued a slight upward trend. The end of 2014 meant a stabilization in the transaction volumes. Thus, the total transaction activity (including contract renewals, besides transactions for new spaces) reached 305,935 sqm, 4% higher than the volume registered in 2013; at the same time, the share of transactions for new spaces increased, to the detriment of the contract renewal segment. The pre-rent evolution was remarkable, as the volumes tripled: 73,274 sqm in 2014, compared to 24,430 sqm registered in 2013. In 2014, the average rent values were relatively stable, and generally maintained within the limits for the previous year. Another category of office spaces is represented by offices located in villas. The demand for villas is showing an upward trend, and rent values vary significantly, depending on the quality standard, facilities, equipment and, most importantly, location. The highest rent values are registered for heritage villas, with the sub-category of premium-renovated villas (high standard renovation), where rent values exceed EUR 18/sqm and reach EUR 25/sqm, more than the average values for class A offices. This is a delicate segment, because both the demand and the supply are limited. For other spaces, the current stock in such locations ranges between average rent values of EUR 8-14/sqm, and are located in the central and semi-central areas. Rent values at the periphery are below EUR 8/sqm. The tenant typology is different from that of tenants who rent office spaces in the business areas (generally corporations, or big companies); usually, the tenants of office spaces located in villas are small or medium-sized companies (by number of employees), generally in the creative industry or free-lancers. 189 Figure 156. Main office areas superimposed on main arterial roads with peak-hour road congestions Source: Adapted after map in the IUDS Bucharest - Mobility chapter. 190 Figure 157. Subway routes load, correlated with the office building locations Source: Adapted after map in the IUDS Bucharest - Mobility chapter. 6.4.3 Retail buildings market Until the early ‘90s, retail units in Bucharest had bee n largely developed at the ground floor of the apartment blocks which bordered the main arterial roads. There were dedicated shopping centers, such as Unirea, Cocor or Victoria, with a centralized management. In 1990-2000, these spaces were privatized and taken over by private investors. In 2000-2006, these spaces were reinvented and transformed, both on the outside and on the inside. During that boom period, the banking institutions, which kept opening new branches, had become the preferred tenant. Until the early ‘90s, retail units in Bucharest had been largely developed at the ground floor of the apartment blocks which bordered the main arterial roads. There were dedicated shopping centers, such as Unirea, Cocor or Victoria, with a centralized management. In 1990-2000, these spaces were privatized and taken over by private investors. In 2000-2006, these spaces were reinvented and transformed, both 191 on the outside and on the inside. During that boom period, the banking institutions, which kept opening new branches, had become the preferred tenant. Figure 158. Average rent values for shopping centers and main commercial areas Source: Map processed from the real estate analysis database. The shift to an active market economy also meant the market diversification, when large shopping malls were developed: the largest so far are București Mall (1999), Băneasa Shopping City (2008), AFI Palace Cotroceni (2009), Sun Plaza (2010), Mega Mall (2015) and Park Lake Plaza (2016). The current stock exceeds 1.2 million sqm, and Bucharest accounts for more than 35% of the total stock in the country. Due to the population density and to the available land reserves, the Western part of the city attracted the most numerous notable projects, followed by the Northern part and, more recently, by the Eastern part (the new developments in the Pallady boulevard area). The Southern part has seen a less intensive development of such spaces, with Sun Plaza being the largest shopping center in the area, after the 2011 bankruptcy of City Mall (opened in 2008 at Eroii Revoluției); currently, the latter provides office spaces. When we analyze the retail units supply, it is obvious that most such spaces located at the ground floor of apartment blocks have small and medium surfaces (maximum surface for such locations is 500 sqm), limited by the structural frame of the apartment blocks. Consequently, the retail shop typology changed with the construction of shopping malls, each of them offering for rent 70,000-80,000 sqm. Initially, after the first Metro and Carrefour shops were opened, in 1996 and in 2001, respectively, the retail market in Bucharest was represented by large decentralized shops such as cash & carry, hypermarkets and DIY stores. Currently, the supermarkets have absorbed a significant share of the retail buildings in Bucharest. Ranging from small “shop&go” units, which do not exceed 50 sqm, to the large 192 units covering hundreds of square meters, the supermarkets have become the tenants of choice, looking for the best locations. In terms of indicators, GLA areas are distributed as follows: 700,000 sqm in shopping centers, 395,000 sqm in retail shops and 105,000 sqm in shopping arcades. The vacancy rate was 3% in 2017. Retail buildings are concentrated in Sector 1, which register the highest population income among the 6 Sectors, and benefits from a density of retail areas of 967 sqm/1000 inhabitants; Sector 1 reported an occupancy rate close to 100% in 2018, and the highest average prime rent values: EUR 75-85/sqm/moth. Sector 6 has the largest retail buildings surface - 317,000 sqm, followed by Sector 3 with 271,000 sqm, supported by the high population density. Figure 159. Evolution of retail buildings in Bucharest Source: Adapted after Cushman and Wakefield, 2018. Table 11. Existing retail buildings stock and occupancy rate Density Of which Occupancy Sector (sqm/1000 Total GLA Shopping rate Retail parks Retail arcades inhabitants) centers 1 967 218000 99.6% 86000 118000 14000 2 495 171000 98.7% 103000 54000 14000 3 703 271000 98.1% 213000 58000 0 4 552 159000 96.8% 129000 30000 0 5 239 65000 94.1% 26000 25000 14000 6 862 317000 98.5% 144000 110000 63000 Source: Adapted after Cushman and Wakefield, 2018. Figure 160 Distribution of large retailers by sector Leroy Merlin Brico Depot Mobexpert Hornbach Dedeman Carrefour Mathaus Kaufland Auchan Selgros Sector Metro Cora Ikea Kika 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 Source: Google Maps data processed and centralized. 6.4.4 Land market The land market analysis becomes a useful tool, both for investors and for local authorities, a both categories are interested in the land sale prices, when they plan investments or developments. Also, the 193 land purchase price will be reflected in the further costs of a real estate product, whether residential, retail or logistic in purposes, and it is a component or the rent or sale price. The land market and the extended economy of a city are closely linked: the land market performance impacts the entire economy, from consumers to taxpayers, from developers to central or local authorities. Unlike the other markets, the real estate analysis of lands requires more fine-tuning, because it is not just the sale value which plays a crucial role in the multitude of factors under analysis; the local policies and the urban regulations play a much more important role in the configuration of a technical solution for the land occupancy, just like the function indicates the layout or size. However, for the purposes of this study, we will only discuss the average sale value, to provide an overall picture on the potential use of the available land reserves and on their market value. For a functional city, the land reserve inventory (regardless of the type of ownership) is critical, as it is one of the main control instruments of planned development. As non-renewable resource, the land (especially the raw land) is subject to a much faster transactional process, as it is property which guarantees both the prosperity of individuals and of the local community. The identification of adequate land for the necessary/proposed functions often involves a competition between the public and private sector, where the former is favored by legislation, which provides for such exercise of rights so as to prioritize the public interest. In Romania, the land real estate evolution was also marked by the events in 1990. The regime change in the 1990s may have had a much stronger impact on this market, as a result of the changes occurred in the implementation and definition of land use policies. If before 1990, land ownerships rights were limited, and all large urban operations happened at a fast pace, as the necessary lands were nationalized, cleared, the constructions demolished, the population displaced with a signature on a decree at central level, 1990 brought fundamental changes. The transition to a market economy, doubled by the changes to legislation, enabled the gradual reinstatement of rights in the land markets. The lack of official land registration (like in the cities from the Western part of the country) and the ambiguous legislation gave rise to confusion over the land ownership rights, and the legal situation of many plots of land in Bucharest is still uncertain: the lack of land registration hampered the enforcement of Law 18/1991 which regulated the reconveyance of agricultural land, with overlaps/interpenetrations of property limits or the issuance of property titles for larger land surfaces than what they actually measured; the purchase of disputed rights for the lands under restitution proceedings which were excessively extended, thus making it impossible for the rightful owners to finalize the legal proceedings - consequently, an even greater ambiguity of the transfer of ownership; difficult procedures for the issuance of property titles by the Bucharest City Prefecture, also due to the lack of organized archives and land registration. The beginning of real estate transactions in Bucharest after 1990 was represented by transactions with land, which became highly valuable property. Lands were at the center of the real estate transactions in 2005-2008, as future support for real estate developments. And it was also during this period when most land use changes occurred, because it was then when the regulations stipulated by the first general urban plan (drafted after 1990) started to produce effects; such changes entailed either an increase in the urban planning coefficients (they dictate the investment value of a piece of land), or the change of land category (land in the “outside the built-up area” category was classified as “within the built-up area”). Meanwhile, many plots of land in green areas became land available for construction, enabling the development of high buildings, or many plots of land around the city which were initially arable land became land for new residential developments (regardless their access to public utilities). The preference for developing lands located at the periphery of the city led to a fast depletion of viable options, with the last available agricultural land being targeted from the first development stage. The change of land category (land in the “outside the built-up area” category was classified as “within the built-up area”) required either a Local Council Decision or a PUZ by the owner. Once the land was classified as “within the built-up area”, to increase its market value, it had to be removed from 194 agricultural use. At that time, the law stipulated for a tax amounting for 300% of the purchase value if the land was removed from agricultural use (e.g., if a piece of land was purchased for 100,000 dollars and was classified as agricultural land, although it was located in an urbanized area, the tax for its removal was USD 300.00, money paid to the state budget). In fact, the state budget had never cashed in such amounts, and the payment of this tax was avoided by various legal technicalities. The, investors turned their attention to the existing industrial platforms in Bucharest, which became preferential locations for building the most varied projects (residential, retail or office buildings). The closure of the gradual move of the industrial activities outside the city boundaries, especially in the case of those which were located in the immediate proximity of residential areas, opened the opportunity for the urban reconfiguration/regeneration of these areas. Naturally, they proved to be the perfect support locations for quite many activities and functions, especially due to the enhanced amenities and accessibility at city level (the developments in Pipera area - which was turned mainly into an office building pole, the development of the Eastern area - with a new retail pole on the location of the former Policolor platform or the development of a new business pole on the location of the former Timpuri Noi platform). This transaction boom across the city extended quite naturally, as mentioned in other chapters of this study, to the neighboring areas (the first ring of localities). Consequently, we note a visible suburbanisation of the peri-urban area, a process which concentrated, in 1999-2010 in the localities of Voluntari, Popești Leordeni, Bragadiru, Otopeni, Chiajna, Domnești, Corbeanca and Clinceni, to be extended in the forthcoming period to the localities of Mogoșoaia, P antelimon and Snagov; therefore, large land reserves were preserved intact, most of them along the administrative-territorial boundaries. Figure 161. Evolution of built-up areas around Bucharest and available land reserves Source: The authors. 195 In 2008, the real estate developments around the Capital entailed villas or private households. “The crisis period meant the development of several collective housing ensembles, due to the land price decline, especially in Chiajna (behind Metro Militari). The crisis halved the development land prices in most areas surrounding Bucharest, which lowered from EUR 300-4000 per square meter to EUR 200 or less in Chiajna, Mogoșoaia and Pipera -Tunari, and after the crisis, the prices started raising by 5%-10% per year, but never reached the values in the boom period”. “With the launch of the First House Program, we see more non-institutional developers who adapted to this Program and offered housing (apartments and villas) to meet both the buyers’ and the Program’s needs. Such projects developed mainly in Chiajna, Popești-Leordeni, Chitila, Tunari-Balotești, Corbeanca, Mogoșoaia” 140. The table below presents the price evolution 2019 versus 2008 for peri-urban localities. Table 12. Evolution of land sale prices (EUR/m2), 2019 versus 2008 Localities 2008 2019 2019 vs. 2008 Berceni 50 28.78 -42.44% Bragadiru 107 50 -53.27% Cernica 90 40 -55.56% Chiajna 170 100 -41.18% Chitila 100 40 -60.00% Corbeanca 97.18 45 -53.69% Domnești 65 25 -61.54% Măgurele 70 29.14 -58.37% Mogoșoaia 155 11 -50.32% Pantelimon 128.75 50 -61.17% Pipera 450 210 -53.33% Tunari 76.15 55 -27,77% Voluntari 329.6 104.5 -68,29% Source: Imobiliare.ro published at https://realestatemagazine.ro/2019/10/terenurile-din-jurul-capitalei- evolutie-si-tendinte. The analysis of data available on the ANCPI website for 2009-2020 outlines two transactional periods at national level (total number of buildings sold at national level, by county): (1)2009 – 2015, a period characterized by a steep increase in the number of transactions, which increased by 158% (2015 vs. 2009) in number, and (2) 2015 – 2019, period a period characterized by a steep decline, by 61% in volume (2019 vs. 2015). However, this trend was not registered in Bucharest, which registered increases throughout the reference period (except for 2017). For the latter, the average annual increase rate was by approximately 10% except for 2017, when it dropped by 4%. 140 According to Knight Frank România - Gabriel Simulescu, associate director, Land Division, published at https://realestatemagazine.ro/2019/10/terenurile-din-jurul-capitalei-evolutie-si-tendinte/ 196 Figure 162. Evolution of all buildings sold, at national level and by county, in 2009-2019 Source: ANCPI data processed from http://www.ancpi.ro/index.php/presa-3/statistici As for the ranking, the first administrative-territorial units totaled approximately 40% of the total transactions carried out at national level in 2008, reaching 57% of the total in 2019. In descending order, they are: Bucharest, Ilfov, Cluj, Timiș, Brașov, Iași, Constanța, Dolj, Bihor and Mureș - this ranking was relatively constant for the entire reference period (with slight variations for the last 3 in the ranking). Obviously, a detailed analysis by type of building will also reveal a specialized portfolio for each ATU, for example, a significant number of transactions involving plots of land within the built-up area for Bucharest, Cluj or Ilfov, compared to other counties, such as Ialomița or Călărași, where we see a significant number of transactions involving land outside the built-up area (agricultural land). Figure 163. Evolution of all buildings sold, by county, (T01/2020) Source: ANCPI data processed from http://www.ancpi.ro/index.php/presa-3/statistici We note the same situation in the first quarter of 2020, with Bucharest ranking first at national level, accounting for 18% of the total transactions registered; all transactions registered for the next three counties almost reach the values registered by Bucharest: Ilfov (almost 50% fewer transactions registered), Cluj and Timiș. 197 Figure 164 Evolution of all individual units (apartments) sold, by county, in 2017 - 2019 T1 Source: ANCPI data processed from - http://www.ancpi.ro/index.php/presa-3/statistici In the total transactions, the individual units (apartments) sold in 2017-T01/2020 (according to data available on the ANCPI website) accounted for 24.08% (in 2017), 52.24% (2018), 21.06% (2019) and 21.07% (Q01/2020). These average values were exceeded both by Bucharest and by Cluj County: 47.27% (in 2017), 73.43% (in 2018), 36.08% (in 2019) and 31.74% 9 (in T01/2020) – for Bucharest; and 32.66% (in 2017), 61.08% (in 2018), 27.77% (in 2019), 37.41% 9 (in T01/2020) – for Cluj County. Figure 165. Evolution of number of land within the built-up area sold in Bucharest and in Ilfov County, in 2017- Q01/2019 Source: ANCPI data processed from - http://www.ancpi.ro/index.php/presa-3/statistici. In Bucharest and Ilfov, in 2017-2020, we note an obvious preference for land transactions compared to individual units transactions, with the following mentions: the number of pieces of land with constructions sold in Bucharest exceeded even by 66% the number of transactions in Ilfov County (in 2018), while the number of number of pieces of land without constructions sold in the same period remains approximately at the same level for both regions, with a clear advantage for Bucharest. We should note the variation in the number of transactions for pieces of land without constructions, which dropped from 43,491 units in 2017 to 33,982 units in 2019; from a comparative perspective, we can conclude that the supply of land without constructions available for sale is in decline. The main investments in the past 3 years indicate an increase in the number of land transactions, where Romanian investors purchased land, especially for apartment blocks, and foreign investors purchased 198 land for office buildings or logistics centers; the land market in Bucharest registered a third consecutive growth year, but it is still 60% below the 2007 levels, which was the best year in terms of transaction volumes, and registered a total of about EUR 628 million141. The transaction volume registered annual growth, from approximately EUR 216 million in 2017 142, EUR 245 million in 2018143 and reached EUR 400 million in 2019144 (these transaction values do not include the industrial segment). In 2017-2018, the areas with the highest transaction volumes (in transaction numbers and value) remain the West and the North areas with a focus on office buildings development; 2019 was dominated by the residential segment, which favored the East area, supported by the development of the retail pole already defined (at the exit to A2 highway). Figure 166. Evolution of average sale prices for land, 2008-S01/2019 Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. The analysis of the average sale price indicator for Bucharest outlines the same trends already detailed in previous chapters, as they are all interconnected: a steep decline in prices starting with 2008 until 2014, followed by a subtle annual increase, registered until 2019. While the decrease is almost 60% compared to 2016, the average annual increase registered in 2015-2019 is about 3percentage points, with a peak of 6% registered in 2017. In the first semester of 2019, the priced dropped again by approximately 1% in Bucharest. Obviously, the prices did not return to the pre-crisis levels, and many developers are building/finalizing projects on land purchased previously. The average prices of land available for sale were also influenced by the variable lot size, which is important when planning further developments: • The average prices of lots between 150-300 sqm - useful for building individual dwellings, for example, were above the average value registered throughout the reference period, with a decrease by 55% compared to 2008, and an increase reported from 2016 until the first semester of 2019. • The average prices of lots between 300-500 sqm - useful for building individual dwellings, for example, were above the average value registered throughout the reference period, with a 141 See https://www.constructiv.ro/2019/02/piata-terenurilor-din-bucuresti-al-3-lea-an-consecutiv-de-crestere/ 142 https://www.agerpres.ro/economic-intern/2018/03/29/tranzactiile-cu-terenuri-in-bucuresti-au-ajuns-la-cel-mai-mare- volum-din-ultimii-10-ani-116-hectare-in-2017--82507 143 According to Colliers INTERNATIONAL and Cushman Wakefield -https://cpi.imobiliare.ro/piata-imobiliara/record-in- tranzactiile-de-terenuri-din-bucuresti-cine-au-fost-principalii-investitori-in-2018 144 According to Colliers INTERNATIONAL – published in https://www.zf.ro/business-construct/in-2019-s-au-tranzactionat- terenuri-de-400-mil-euro-tot-mai-multi-investitori-si-au-consolidat-pozitiile-in-anumite-area-au-reaparut-si-tranzactiile- speculative-18712653 199 decrease by 60% compared to 2008, and an increase reported from 2016 until the first semester of 2019. • The average prices of lots between 500-100 sqm - useful for building individual/collective dwellings, for example, were above the average value registered throughout the reference period, with a decrease by 64% compared to 2008, and an increase reported from 2016 until 2018. • The average prices of lots exceeding 1000 sqm - useful for building individual/collective dwellings / retail buildings/office buildings, for example, were above the average value registered throughout the reference period, with a decrease by 57% compared to 2008, and an increase reported from 2016 until 2018. Table 13. Evolution of average land prices in 2008-S01/2019, by land surface 2019 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 -S1 average price 1,334 € 1,277 € 1,102 € 836 646 519 478 487 505 536 552 547 per sqm € € € € € € € € € variation - 96% 86% 76% 77% 80% 92% 102 104 106 103 99% compared to % % % % previous year average price 1,394 € 1,326 € 1,162 € 923 738 608 559 554 527 550 586 629 per sqm for land € € € € € € € € € with surface between 150 and 300 sqm variation - 95% 88% 79% 80% 82% 92% 99% 95% 104 107 107 compared to % % % previous year average price 1,417 € 1,348 € 1,186 € 846 660 536 522 535 544 555 563 563 per sqm for land € € € € € € € € € with surface between 300 and 500 sqm variation - 95% 88% 71% 78% 81% 97% 103 102 102 101 100 compared to % % % % % previous year average price 1,499 € 1,399 € 1,195 € 863 676 539 499 506 516 549 568 541 per sqm for land € € € € € € € € € with surface between 500 and 1000 sqm variation - 93% 85% 72% 78% 80% 93% 101 102 106 103 95% compared to % % % % previous year average price 1,227 € 1,162 € 1,058 € 896 651 484 422 453 487 521 545 524 per sqm for land € € € € € € € € € with surface exceeding 1000 sqm variation - 95% 91% 85% 73% 74% 87% 107 108 107 105 96% compared to % % % % previous year Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. Obviously, these indicative values of the selling offers only reflect a small portion of the transaction volumes, and the large lots (starting from 2-3 hectares) which, due to their location, easy access to the 200 transport infrastructure and utilities etc., become investment stars. We mention here some of the large investments registered so far which have restructured or will further restructure real estate sub- markets: • The acquisition of the former Laromet platform, covering 155,000 sqm, by AFI Europe in 2007 for EUR 77.5 million145 - further investment in the residential segment (North sub-market), • The acquisition of the former Timpuri Noi platform, covering 54,000 sqm, by Vastint in 2010 for EUR 34.6 million (according to economica.net)146 - further investment in the office buildings segment (Centre sub-market), • The acquisition of a 47-hectare land in Șisești area, by Vastint in 2016 for EUR 70 million147 (according to economica.net) - further investment in the residential segment (North sub- market), • The acquisition of the former Policolor platform, covering 14 hectares in 2017 for EUR 22 million148 - further investment in the retail segment (East sub-market), • The acquisitions in the Expoziției area, by Impact Developer&Contractor and Atenor Group - transactions around EUR 10 million each149 - further investment in the office buildings segment (North sub-market), • The acquisition of the former Helitube factory in Colentina covering 89,000 sqm in the first phase - in 2018, for EUR 60 million, sold in 2019 for EUR 20 million to BelRom 150 (East sub- market), • The acquisition of a piece of land on Expoziției street, covering 28,700 sqm, by London Partners in 2019 for EUR 15 million - further investment in the residential segment (North sub-market), • The acquisition of a piece of land on Calea Victoriei, covering 5,000 sqm, by Strabag in 2019 for EUR 12 million151 - further investment in the office buildings segment (Centre sub-market), 145 https://www.zf.ro/constructii-imobiliare/afi-europe-demareaza-constructia-proiectului-rezidential-afi-city-in-zona- bucurestii-noi-din-capitala-16984054 146 https://www.economica.net/divizia-imobiliara-a-inter-ikea-investeste-surse-proprii-in-turnurile-de-la-timpuri-noi-si- pregateste-al-doilea-proiect_109526.html 147 https://www.economica.net/vastint-solicita-aprobarea-puz-pentru-componenta-rezidentiala-a-timpuri-noi- square_177025.html 148 https://adevarul.ro/economie/imobiliare/studiu-tranzactiile-terenuri-depasit-350-milioane-euro-2017-cele-mai-vanate- area-capitala-1_5a55e2cadf52022f755ca947/index.html 149 https://adevarul.ro/economie/imobiliare/studiu-tranzactiile-terenuri-depasit-350-milioane-euro-2017-cele-mai-vanate- area-capitala-1_5a55e2cadf52022f755ca947/index.html 150 https://www.wall-street.ro/articol/Real-Estate/244683/tranzactii-cu-terenuri-in-bucuresti-peste-500-000-mp-in-primele- 6-luni-2019.html#gref 151 https://www.wall-street.ro/articol/Real-Estate/244683/tranzactii-cu-terenuri-in-bucuresti-peste-500-000-mp-in-primele- 6-luni-2019.html#gref 201 Figure 167. Evolution of estimated average selling prices for land, by size, in 2008-S01/2019, for Bucharest Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. Similar to the apartment market analysis, relevant for land analysis is their distribution and location in the real estate advertisement areas, as the prices vary significantly from one area to another, based on different factors: • Location: as for any real estate property, location is key. The area/neighborhood are most important, as they already “deliver” the most important value, more specifically the location either in a renowned area, or in a less attractive area. The neighboring areas are also very important: even though the location is the one targeted, the neighboring areas might not be ideal, for example, a cemetery or active or inactive industrial activities, and might pose future discomfort, such as a source of pollution or noise, for a future residential/office building project. • The lot configuration: • The lot openness towards the street: access will be established based on the lot width, and access is crucial when planning a future investment; obviously a generous openness brings added-value to that plot of land. This is crucial in land selection for the development of retail functions, for example, where companies in the field start looking for land which meets minimum requirements, such as openness, so as to configure vehicle access. • Lot shape: most buyers prefer square-like lands which facilitate design options. However, the plotting pattern developed in Bucharest, with few notable exceptions, is mostly dominated by elongated, narrow lots, with constructions along the property boundaries; this led to more or less inspired solutions, and Bucharest is still punctured by dead walls. • Regulations and lot occupancy options - the urban planning indicators dictate the land occupancy pattern and later on, the actual total investment: 202 • Land Occupancy Percentage (LOP) - a varying coefficient, depending on the regulated area, and determined by the shape of property boundaries; • Land Use Coefficient (LUC) – coefficient determined by the ratio between the total surface (without basement) and the plot surface; • Maximum H: it is determined by the maximum height of the future building, correlated with the height of neighboring developments; however, the height depends on LOP and LUC and any change can trigger structural and substantial changes in a given area. • The function which the land can support: last, but not least, this is crucial in the land acquisition process. • Access to utilities: another extremely important factor in land valuation; here as well, we note different approaches, depending on the expected function: (1) for residential functions, while until 2020 developers could purchase land which was not connected to the utility network and could build, sell and commission, this was changed by law no. 7/2020 amending and supplementing Law no. 10/1995 on quality in constructions and amending and supplementing Law no. 50/1991 on the authorization of construction works (Article 22) which stipulates that commissioning may only be performed after the acceptance of authorized and final connections to the public utilities networks; failure to comply to good urban operations led to large neighborhoods without running water or sewerage at the periphery of Bucharest; (2) for new office buildings and retail developments, it was quite the opposite, the access to utilities, the installed capacity, any future opportunities to enhance such capacity have been essential in the acquisition process. • Road transport or public transport accessibility: access to main arterial roads, lot entry or exit options, access from private versus public roads, road surface, whether the traffic is already excessive on that road, these are the first questions to answer when buying land. Depending on the future project, the decision on relocation can be easily made if the access is not adequate. Moreover, transport means play a key role in land valuation, and the most valuable lands have been and will remain those located in central areas near the public transport means, preferably near the subway routes. The proximity to an existing subway station is an important criterion, especially for office buildings projects (which is demonstrated by their placement), as well as for residential projects. Having regard to all of the above, there are obviously preferred areas, where available land is scarce or diminishing. As indicated by the table below, in certain real estate advertisement areas, more specifically: Kiseleff-Aviatorilor, Cotroceni, Dacia-Eminescu, Victoriei-Romană-Universitate, Dorobanți- Floreasca, Ferdinand, Herăstrău-Nordului, Moșilor and Vitan Nou, the offers for sale exceeded EUR 2000/sqm (Environmental Protection price) 2008 – S1; however, the trend registered by the real estate market was manifest even here, with a substantial price decline reported for 2019 – S1 versus 2008 – S1. It is interesting to note that only the areas Kiseleff-Aviatorilor, Cotroceni, Victoriei-Romană- Universitate, Dorobanți-Floreasca and Herăstrău-Nordului still registered in 2019 – S1 selling values exceeding EUR 1000/sqm (Environmental Protection price). A notable exception is the Kiseleff- Aviatorilor area, where land plots exceeding 1000 sqm reach average values of EUR 2500/sqm. Two areas have maintained relatively constant values throughout the reference period, Pantelimon and Berceni (average price asked: EUR 250-300/sqm), which favored the development of new residential areas towards the administrative boundary of the city. The areas which registered the strongest decline in the average price levels (more than 65%) were Ferdinand, Dristor-Vitan Vechi, Dacia-Eminescu, Tineretului-Timpuri Noi, Băneasa, Tei, Vitan Nou and Aviației. 203 Table 14 Evolution of average land prices in the 1st semester of 2008 versus the 1st semester of 2019 by real estate advertisement areas 2008-S1- average prices per sqm 2019-s1- average prices per sqm Evolution of price decreases for 2019- average price per sqm for land with average price per sqm for land with surface between 500 and 1000 sqm land with surface between 150 and land with surface between 300 and land with surface between 500 and land with surface between 150 and land with surface between 300 and land with surface exceeding 1000 surface exceeding 1000 sqm S1 compared to 2008-S1 average price per sqm average price per sqm neighborhood 1000 sqm 300 sqm 500 sqm 300 sqm 500 sqm sqm 1 Mai 1,600 € 1,784 € 1,500 € 1,950 € 786 € 787 € 830 € 700 € 600 € -51% 13 1,300 € 1,226 € 1,250 € 1,558 € 1,625 € 700 € 633 € 554 € 750 € 633 € -46% Septembrie- Panduri Aviației 1,800 € 1,990 € 1,700 € 1,700 € 1,500 € 526 € 652 € 600 € 210 € 661 € -71% Băneasa 680 € 1,500 € 1,200 € 670 € 517 € 214 € 562 € 281 € 210 € 209 € -68% Berceni 355 € 860 € 750 € 275 € 155 € 290 € 394 € 397 € 279 € 193 € -18% Bucureștii Noi 865 € 850 € 930 € 917 € 550 € 313 € 324 € 365 € 25 € 250 € -64% Colentina 700 € 832 € 758 € 566 € 675 € 262 € 335 € 254 € 210 € 251 € -63% Cotroceni 2,750 € 2,750 € 3,200 € 1,600 € 1,200 € 1,103 € 1,200 € 1,500 € -56% Crângași 1,030 € 1,111 € 1,000 € 1,200 € 825 € 400 € 418 € 400 € -61% Dacia- 2,500 € 2,470 € 2,600 € 2,500 € 807 € 657 € 799 € 895 € 815 € -68% Eminescu Decebal-Calea 1,850 € 1,850 € 1,825 € 1,650 € 2,100 € 653 € 665 € 667 € 622 € 675 € -65% Călărașilor Dorobanți- 2,385 € 2,304 € 2,500 € 3,050 € 2,550 € 1,040 € 920 € 1,071 € 1,050 € 807 € -56% Floreasca Dristor-Vitan 1,500 € 1,500 € 1,251 € 1,335 € 1,523 € 513 € 490 € 500 € 615 € 600 € -66% Vechi Drumul 500 € 1,200 € 250 € 500 € 250 € 237 € 286 € 225 € -50% Taberei Ferdinand 2,000 € 2,705 € 1,500 € 2,000 € 2,000 € 698 € 601 € 703 € 617 € 750 € -65% Ghencea 206 € 363 € 300 € 195 € 216 € 100 € 101 € 94 € 100 € -51% Giulești 360 € 533 € 624 € 363 € 190 € 202 € 239 € 262 € 100 € 95 € -44% Giurgiului 185 € 845 € 600 € 140 € 110 € 100 € 337 € 170 € 95 € 77 € -46% Griviței-Gara 1,200 € 1,500 € 1,200 € 1,600 € 575 € 556 € 719 € 423 € 540 € 625 € -54% de Nord Herăstrău- 2,000 € 2,000 € 2,550 € 2,250 € 1,400 € 1,000 € 1,000 € 983 € 1,083 € 1,000 -50% Nordului € Iancului-Mihai 1,671 € 1,475 € 1,600 € 1,700 € 2,000 € 625 € 660 € 568 € 651 € 607 € -63% Bravu Kiseleff- 2,800 € 3,350 € 4,000 € 2,200 € 1,683 € 1,721 € 1,407 € 1,650 € 2,500 -40% Aviatorilor € Militari 600 € 700 € 800 € 550 € 400 € 293 € 346 € 450 € 338 € 235 € -51% Moșilor 2,000 € 1,988 € 2,117 € 2,000 € 2,694 € 711 € 822 € 900 € 554 € 711 € -64% Pantelimon 223 € 540 € 200 € 185 € 258 € 220 € 260 € 304 € 100 € 240 € -1% 204 2008-S1- average prices per sqm 2019-s1- average prices per sqm Evolution of price decreases for 2019- average price per sqm for land with average price per sqm for land with surface between 500 and 1000 sqm land with surface between 150 and land with surface between 300 and land with surface between 500 and land with surface between 150 and land with surface between 300 and land with surface exceeding 1000 surface exceeding 1000 sqm S1 compared to 2008-S1 average price per sqm average price per sqm neighborhood 1000 sqm 300 sqm 500 sqm 300 sqm 500 sqm sqm Carol Park 1,754 € 1,625 € 1,754 € 3,150 € 1,600 € 623 € 709 € 759 € 513 € 575 € -64% (Cantemir- Mărășești) Pipera 414 € 1,391 € 500 € 477 € 400 € 243 € 249 € 220 € 255 € -41% Rahova 195 € 447 € 205 € 187 € 163 € 110 € 266 € 147 € 100 € 90 € -44% Stefan Cel 1,765 € 1,420 € 1,700 € 2,300 € 2,500 € 750 € 770 € 598 € 765 € -58% Mare Tei 1,500 € 1,497 € 1,100 € 1,400 € 2,250 € 453 € 310 € 415 € 596 € 500 € -70% Tineretului- 1,900 € 1,750 € 1,875 € 2,550 € 2,100 € 600 € 605 € 600 € 800 € 550 € -68% Timpuri Noi Titan 361 € 1,100 € 500 € 600 € 300 € 137 € 578 € 150 € 111 € 137 € -62% Unirii 1,648 € 1,650 € 2,000 € 2,060 € 200 € 830 € 813 € 693 € 958 € 830 € -50% Victoriei- 2,450 € 2,060 € 2,795 € 2,225 € 2,000 € 1,091 € 938 € 1,000 € 1,100 € 1,000 -55% Romană- € Universitate Vitan Nou 2,000 € 1,500 € 2,300 € 2,000 € 600 € 591 € 622 € 380 € -70% Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. The analysis of the real estate market highlights the following aspects about the land market, according to the functional typology desired: • Office buildings, whether individual buildings or a group of office buildings, have developed around subway stations, occupying empty land plots or land previously used by former industrial platforms. Aviației / Pipera / Barbu Văcărescu / Floreasca is by far the most clearly shaped pole. This was followed by the Politehnica – Grozăvești area, which had available various large-sized land plots; we note the development of new poles, in the Expoziției and Tineretului – Timpuri areas (new land acquisition transactions are expected to be performed by new investors). • For retail projects, accessibility was key in the land acquisition process: thus, the first shopping malls were built at the boundary with the central area, generally on the location of former industrial facilities and around large residential ensembles; other large retail nodes were built at the periphery, near highway entry points: A1, initially and then A2 (urban sprawl area) and, in the future, A3. • New residential development, unlike the other segments, has been present in all areas, wherever the land had acceptable dimensions to support a new insertion. Thus, there are projects developed in central or semi-central areas near public transport stations, as well as in area where public transport is scarce or missing, but the very low price of the land was reason enough for the development of new residential areas. This has also been one of the triggers of 205 the significant apartment price variations (in new buildings, studios were sold for EUR 25,000 at the periphery, and a parking spot in the central area was sold for EUR 15,000). Figure 168. Land reserves available in Bucharest, by average price by real estate advertisement area (average selling price) (S01/2019) Source: Own calculation based on selling offers in the real estate databases. The mapping of available land (whether brownfields or greenfields), by real estate advertisement areas reveals a portfolio which is still rich, especially in areas less explored so far. The largest land reserves which could be valorized are located in the southern part of Bucharest, at the periphery, in Rahova or Giurgiului neighborhoods (areas with the lowest average selling prices - EUR 150/sqm), and on the East- West axis, in Titan (average selling price - EUR 150/sqm), Militari or Drumul Taberei (average prices range between EUR 250-300/sqm). While the land plots in the Southern part are still impacted by the lack of infrastructure (high speed road infrastructure or public transport infrastructure, more specifically, the subway), the East and West areas do not face this issue. Therefore, we note a clear preference among investors to focus their efforts in these two areas (mainly Militari / A1 or Theodor Pallady / Anghel Saligny), shaping even more vigorously the urban sprawl areas. The North area did not lose any of its attractiveness, on the contrary, it is in full swing, as the perspective of the completion of a new subway route connecting with Otopeni International Airport opens new development opportunities within and outside the administrative-territorial boundaries of the city. Conversely, the situation of available land plots in the central ring area and along its boundaries remain uncertain. There are still various large-size locations in the central area which, due to the real estate 206 pressure and the uncertainties related to their legal regime, are left derelict; among them, we mention just some examples, such as the Esplanada (Unirii area), the former location of Casa Radio (Splaiul Unirii) or other plots of land which were left undeveloped following the large scale urban planning operations implemented before 1990 (e.g., those in the Jewish Quarter or around The People’s Palace). 6.5 Attractiveness of Bucharest neighborhoods Currently, competition between cities has become almost measurable, especially when it comes to cities from different countries which are more or less in the same development stage, but which are competing directly for resources of all kinds. Moreover, this competition is noticeable at national or regional levels as well. The competition is so fierce, that the phenomenon becomes manifest within the same urban system, because the sectors/neighborhoods within the same city rely on the same types of resources: potential investments, attraction and relocation of citizens, attraction of visitors. Due to this phenomenon, but without being limited to it, cities are trying to implement changes and to become sustainable (from a social, economic and environmental perspective), by targeted actions, such as development of new green areas, of the local economy etc. In other words, cities/sectors/neighborhoods strive to become more attractive. Thus, the analysis of neighborhoods attractiveness in terms of housing appears like a natural step after the real estate analysis and attempts to answer the question why are certain neighborhoods favored against others, in relocation actions, as an aspect with decisive influence on the market value of property (by creating an imbalance between demand and supply) and, at the same time, it influences access to housing, in general. This analysis is relevant to understand the urban development dynamics where the neighborhood, although without physical and administrative boundaries, plays an important role in the collective mentality, as it is much easier for people to identify or to relate with it, than in the case of a sector (especially due to its homogeneity and specific spatial peculiarities - landmarks, centers, spaces etc.). Indicators were grouped as follows: (1) to evaluate the physical attributes of the built-up environment in terms of functional and spatial aspects; (2) to evaluate user satisfaction with the neighborhood/sector amenities (starting from the wide sociological survey conducted under IUDS Bucharest); and (3) to measure housing accessibility. What152 proves very important to mention is that the physical dimension of a built-up space (by its use) has an impact on the social dimension (by user behavior), while the perceptive dimension is a result of the interaction between the social dimension and the physical attributes of the environment shaped by the proximity. 152R. Qawasmeh, Identification of the quality of urban life assessment aspects in residential neighbourhoods in Doha, article in The Sustainable City IX, Vol. 1 391 207 Detailed indicators and results / methodology applied in Bucharest153. within a sector Location within the inner ring 10 outside the central ring / periphery 5 For this indicator, the highest-scoring neighborhoods are: Cotroceni, Dacia-Eminescu, Decebal-Calea Călărașilor, Dorobanți-Floreasca, Ferdinand, Griviței-Gara de Nord, Moșilor, Carol Park (Cantemir- Mărășești), Ștefan Cel Mare, Tineretului-Timpuri Noi, Unirii, Victoriei-Romană-Universitate and Vitan Nou (neighborhoods located in the inner ring). Figure 169. Neighborhood location compared to the city center Source: The authors 153The methodology was applied along the boundaries of the real estate advertisement areas, to be able to correlate all indicators; results from other IUDS surveys were included as follows: Housing, Services, Transport, Demographics, Economy or Social Survey. 208 no paved streets -1 Accessibility important traffic arteries 3 with major arteries 1 pedestrian areas and bicycles lanes 10 For this indicator, the highest-scoring neighborhoods are: 13 Septembrie- Panduri / Cotroceni, Aviației, Băneasa, Decebal-Calea Călărașilor, Dorobanți-Floreasca, Kiseleff-Aviatorilor, Carol Park (Cantemir- Mărășești), Pipera, Tineretului-Timpuri Noi, Titan, Unirii, Victoriei-Romană-Universitate, Vitan Nou (neighborhoods with higher pedestrian accessibility: pedestrian areas and / or bicycles lanes). Figure 170. Carriageway and footway accessibility of neighborhoods Source: The authors 209 without public transport depends on one type of surface transport 1 Public transport several surface transport options 2 with surface transport and subway 5 For this indicator, the highest-scoring neighborhoods are: 1 Mai-Domenii, Aviației, Berceni, Bucureștii Noi, Cotroceni, Crângași, Dacia-Eminescu, Decebal-Calea Călărașilor, Dorobanți-Floreasca, Dristor-Vitan Vechi, Griviței-Gara de Nord, Herăstrău-Nordului, Iancului-Mihai Bravu, Kiseleff-Aviatorilor, Militari, Moșilor, Pantelimon, Carol Park (Cantemir-Mărășești), Pipera, Stefan Cel Mare, Tineretului-Timpuri Noi, Titan, Unirii, Victoriei-Romană-Universitate, Vitan Nou (accessible with multiple public transport means, including the subway). Figure 171. Access to public transport Source: The authors 210 buildings with seismic risk (more than 20 buildings per area) -5 buildings with derelict facades (quick evaluation of the area) -3 apartment blocks older than 50 years old -2 Built-up residential less than 50% apartment blocks with thermal rehabilitation (sector level evaluation) 3 stock condition more than 50% apartment blocks with thermal rehabilitation (sector level evaluation) 4 Insertions of new residential buildings (less than 20 years old) 5 For this indicator, the highest-scoring neighborhoods (cumulating more than 8 points, after adding up all scores) are: Aviației, Băneasa, Colentina, Crângași, Dristor-Vitan Vechi, Ghencea, Herăstrău-Nordului, Kiseleff-Aviatorilor, Pipera, Tei, Tineretului-Timpuri Noi and Vitan Nou. Figure 172. Neighborhoods grouped by distribution of buildings with seismic risk (more than 20 buildings per area) Source: The authors 211 Figure 173. Neighborhoods grouped by distribution of buildings with derelict facades (quick evaluation of the area) Source: The authors 212 Figure 174. Neighborhoods grouped by distribution of residential buildings older than 50 years old Source: The authors 213 Figure 175. Thermal rehabilitation of apartment blocks: situation by sectors Source: The authors 214 Figure 176. New insertions of residential buildings (built stock not exceeding 20 years since construction) Source: The authors 215 high apartment blocks (present mainly along the streets/boulevards) 1 low-height apartment blocks 2 Density/spatiality areas with pre-planned houses / plots (built between the two World Wars) 3 areas with new houses (plots) 4 For this indicator, the highest-scoring neighborhoods (cumulating more than 6 points, after adding up all scores) are: 1 Mai-Domenii, Băneasa. Bucureștii Noi, Dorobanți-Floreasca, Ghencea, Giurgiului, Carol Park (Cantemir-Mărășești) and Vitan Nou. Figure 177. Neighborhoods grouped by spatiality/density of built areas Source: The authors 216 more than 5 km from forests/lakes/river (for more than 50% of the neighborhood surface) 1 Natural elements between 3 and 5 km from forests/lakes/river 2 between 1 and 3 km from forests/lakes/river 3 less than 1 km from forests/lakes/river 4 For this indicator, the highest-scoring neighborhoods are: 1 Mai-Domenii, Aviației, Băneasa, Colentina, Crângași, Giulești, Herăstrău-Nordului, Kiseleff-Aviatorilor, Pantelimon, Carol Park (Cantemir- Mărășești), Pipera, Tei, Tineretului-Timpuri Noi, Unirii and Vitan Nou. Figure 178. Neighborhoods grouped by presence of natural elements Source: The authors 217 residential neighborhood without a large park -1 near a park (less than 1 km) 2 small park 3 Leisure large park 5 multiple green areas between apartment blocks 3 sports facilities (less than 1 km away) 4 For this indicator, the highest-scoring neighborhoods (cumulating more than 14 points, after adding up all scores) are: Băneasa, Colentina, Dorobanți-Floreasca, Pipera, Tineretului-Timpuri Noi, Titan and Unirii. Figure 179. Neighborhoods grouped by presence of parks Source: The authors 218 Figure 180. Neighborhoods grouped by green areas between apartment blocks and by sports facilities Source: The authors 219 proximity shops 1 supermarkets 2 Shopping centers hypermarkets 3 shopping mall (less than 3 km away) 4 ground floor shops 5 For this indicator, the highest-scoring neighborhoods (cumulating more than 15 points, after adding up all scores) are: 13 Septembrie- Panduri / Cotroceni, Aviației, Băneasa, Berceni, Bucureștii Noi, Colentina, Crângași, Decebal-Calea Călărașilor, Dristor-Vitan Vechi, Drumul Taberei, Ghencea, Giulești, Giurgiului, Griviței-Gara de Nord, Herăstrău-Nordului, Iancului-Mihai Bravu, Militari, Moșilor, Pantelimon, Carol Park (Cantemir-Mărășești), Pipera, Rahova, Stefan Cel Mare, Tei, Tineretului-Timpuri Noi, Titan, Unirii, Victoriei-Romană-Universitate and Vitan Nou. Figure 181. Neighborhoods grouped by presence of commercial centers Source: The authors 220 without public schools -1 with pre-school facilities 1 Education with primary and secondary education institutions 2 with high-schools 3 higher education institutions 4 For this indicator, the analysis shows that all sectors are served by primary and secondary education schools, and the highest scores were granted for the following neighborhoods: Cotroceni, Crângași, Griviței-Gara de Nord, Tei, Tineretului-Timpuri Noi and Victoriei-Romană-Universitate (which also include higher education institutions). Figure 182. Access to education: primary and secondary education institutions serving the neighborhoods Source: The authors 221 areas without large public and private employers 1 areas with many public employers 2 Jobs areas with many private employers 3 areas with many public and private employers 5 For this indicator, the highest-scoring neighborhoods are: Cotroceni, Dacia-Eminescu, Decebal-Calea Călărașilor, Dorobanți-Floreasca, Ferdinand, Griviței-Gara de Nord, Carol Park (Cantemir-Mărășești), Pipera, Stefan Cel Mare, Unirii, Victoriei-Romană-Universitate and Vitan Nou. Figure 183. Access to jobs/employers Source: The authors 222 Major investments in ongoing 5 infrastructure projects for the near future (1-5 years) 3 For this indicator, the highest-scoring neighborhoods are: Berceni, Colentina, Cotroceni, Crângași, Decebal-Calea Călărașilor, Drumul Taberei, Ghencea and Stefan Cel Mare. Figure 184. Neighborhoods grouped by public investments Source: The authors 223 Major private investments new residential ensembles 3 (ongoing and future) new office buildings 5 For this indicator, the highest-scoring neighborhoods (8 points) are: Aviației, Dacia-Eminescu, Dorobanți-Floreasca, Herăstrău-Nordului, Pipera, Stefan Cel Mare and Tineretului-Timpuri Noi. Figure 185. Neighborhoods grouped by private investments Source: The authors 224 without generous interstitial spaces 1 with generous interstitial spaces 2 Social interaction with parks in proximity / in that neighborhood 3 with well-defined neighborhood centers 4 with day-care centers 5 For this indicator, the highest-scoring neighborhoods (cumulating more than 9 points) are: Aviației, Berceni, Bucureștii Noi, Colentina, Crângași, Dorobanți-Floreasca, Dristor-Vitan Vechi, Drumul Taberei, Giulești, Iancului-Mihai Bravu, Moșilor, Pantelimon, Stefan Cel Mare, Tei, Tineretului-Timpuri Noi and Titan. Figure 186. Social interaction Source: The authors 225 Citizens’ perception: very low (average 5-6) 5 satisfaction with their high (average 7-8) 8 sector very high (average 9-10) 10 For this indicator, the highest-scoring neighborhoods are: Dristor-Vitan Vechi, Giurgiului, Tineretului- Timpuri Noi, Titan and Vitan Nou. Figure 187. Citizens’ perception: satisfaction with their sector Source: The authors 226 20% below the average 1 10-20% below the average 2 Average price per m2 same as Bucharest average 3 for studios (S1-2019) 10-20% more than the average 4 over 30% more than the average 5 Figure 188. Average price per m2 for studios (S01/2019) Source: The authors 227 20% below the average 1 2 Average price per m 10-20% below the average 2 for 2-room same as Bucharest average 3 apartments (S1-2019) 10-20% more than the average 4 over 20% more than the average 5 Figure 189. Average price per m2 for 2-room apartments (S1/2019) Source: The authors 228 20% below the average 1 Average price per m2 10-20% below the average 2 for 3-room same as Bucharest average 3 apartments (S1-2019) 10-20% more than the average 4 over 20% more than the average 5 Figure 190. Average price per m2 for 3-room apartments (S1/2019) Source: The authors 229 20% below the average 1 Average price per m2 10-20% below the average 2 for +4-room same as Bucharest average 3 apartments (S1-2019) 10-20% more than the average 4 over 20% more than the average 5 Figure 191. Average price per m2 for 4-room apartments (S1/2019) Source: The authors 230 Affordability of housing built in 1977-2000 - with loans income RON 6885 / 1464 (with co- Share of loan - apartment value % Share of loan - apartment value % Average price 45 sqm apartment income of RON 4050 / EUR 862 maximum monthly instalment maximum monthly instalment borrower 70% of his income) Maximum loan for monthly Maximum loan for monthly average price per sqm built between 1977-2000 neighborhood 1 Mai 1,649 € 74,192 € 45,545 € 259 € 61% 77,352 € 439 € 104% 13 Septembrie- 1,151 € 51,774 € 45,545 € 259 € 88% 77,352 € 439 € 149% Panduri Aviației 1,812 € 81,561 € 45,545 € 259 € 56% 77,352 € 439 € 95% Băneasa 1,565 € 70,404 € 45,545 € 259 € 65% 77,352 € 439 € 110% Berceni 1,138 € 51,204 € 45,545 € 259 € 89% 77,352 € 439 € 151% Bucureștii Noi 1,087 € 48,937 € 45,545 € 259 € 93% 77,352 € 439 € 158% Colentina 1,162 € 52,303 € 45,545 € 259 € 87% 77,352 € 439 € 148% Cotroceni 45,545 € 259 € 77,352 € 439 € Crângași 1,205 € 54,240 € 45,545 € 259 € 84% 77,352 € 439 € 143% Dacia-Eminescu 1,737 € 78,154 € 45,545 € 259 € 58% 77,352 € 439 € 99% Decebal-Calea 1,620 € 72,917 € 45,545 € 259 € 62% 77,352 € 439 € 106% Călărașilor Dorobanți- 2,120 € 95,405 € 45,545 € 259 € 48% 77,352 € 439 € 81% Floreasca Dristor-Vitan 1,270 € 57,134 € 45,545 € 259 € 80% 77,352 € 439 € 135% Vechi Drumul Taberei 1,107 € 49,799 € 45,545 € 259 € 91% 77,352 € 439 € 155% Ferdinand 45,545 € 259 € 77,352 € 439 € Ghencea 1,073 € 48,266 € 45,545 € 259 € 94% 77,352 € 439 € 160% Giulești 1,152 € 51,848 € 45,545 € 259 € 88% 77,352 € 439 € 149% Giurgiului 1,014 € 45,623 € 45,545 € 259 € 100% 77,352 € 439 € 170% Griviței-Gara de 45,545 € 259 € 77,352 € 439 € Nord Herăstrău- 2,202 € 99,083 € 45,545 € 259 € 46% 77,352 € 439 € 78% Nordului Iancului-Mihai 1,288 € 57,946 € 45,545 € 259 € 79% 77,352 € 439 € 133% Bravu Kiseleff- 2,112 € 95,030 € 45,545 € 259 € 48% 77,352 € 439 € 81% Aviatorilor Militari 1,125 € 50,608 € 45,545 € 259 € 90% 77,352 € 439 € 153% Moșilor 1,451 € 65,289 € 45,545 € 259 € 70% 77,352 € 439 € 118% Unknown 1,200 € 53,991 € 45,545 € 259 € 84% 77,352 € 439 € 143% Pantelimon 1,150 € 51,759 € 45,545 € 259 € 88% 77,352 € 439 € 149% Carol Park 1,543 € 69,443 € 45,545 € 259 € 66% 77,352 € 439 € 111% (Cantemir- Mărășești) Pipera 45,545 € 259 € 77,352 € 439 € 231 Affordability of housing built in 1977-2000 - with loans income RON 6885 / 1464 (with co- Share of loan - apartment value % Share of loan - apartment value % Average price 45 sqm apartment income of RON 4050 / EUR 862 maximum monthly instalment maximum monthly instalment borrower 70% of his income) Maximum loan for monthly Maximum loan for monthly average price per sqm built between 1977-2000 neighborhood Rahova 1,000 € 45,012 € 45,545 € 259 € 101% 77,352 € 439 € 172% Ștefan Cel Mare 1,455 € 65,489 € 45,545 € 259 € 70% 77,352 € 439 € 118% Tei 1,220 € 54,913 € 45,545 € 259 € 83% 77,352 € 439 € 141% Tineretului- 1,520 € 68,398 € 45,545 € 259 € 67% 77,352 € 439 € 113% Timpuri Noi Titan 1,175 € 52,888 € 45,545 € 259 € 86% 77,352 € 439 € 146% Unirii 1,748 € 78,638 € 45,545 € 259 € 58% 77,352 € 439 € 98% Victoriei- 1,902 € 85,605 € 45,545 € 259 € 53% 77,352 € 439 € 90% Romană- Universitate Vitan Nou 1,381 € 62,142 € 45,545 € 259 € 73% 77,352 € 439 € 124% Source: own calculations 232 share of loan in the apartment value: 90%-105% 10 Access to housing by loans - share of loan in the apartment value: 85%-90% 6 single-borrower loan share of loan in the apartment value: 80%-85% 2 (housing built in 1977-2000) share of loan in the apartment value: 70%-80% -2 share of loan in the apartment value: 70%-45% -4 Figure 192. Access to housing by loans: single-borrower loan for housing built in 1977-2000 Source: The authors 233 Access to housing by loans - family share of loan in the apartment value: 105% - 175% 20 loan / with co-borrower (housing share of loan in the apartment value: 90%-105% 10 built in 1977-2000) share of loan in the apartment value: 70%-80% -2 Figure 193. Access to housing by loans: family loan or with co-borrower for housing built in 1977-2000 Source: The authors 234 Affordability of housing built after 2000 - with loans monthly income RON 6885 Share of loan - apartment Share of loan - apartment / 1464 (with co-borrower price per sqm built after monthly income of RON Average price 45 sqm Average price 45 sqm maximum monthly maximum monthly 70% of his income) Maximum loan for Maximum loan for 4050 / EUR 862 neighborhood instalment instalment apartment apartment average value % value % 2000 1 Mai 1,710 € 76,953 € 45,545 € 259 € 59% 76,953 € 77,352 € 439 € 101% 13 1,431 € 64,378 € 45,545 € 259 € 71% 64,378 € 77,352 € 439 € 120% Septembrie- Panduri Aviației 1,879 € 84,554 € 45,545 € 259 € 54% 84,554 € 77,352 € 439 € 91% Băneasa 1,614 € 72,643 € 45,545 € 259 € 63% 72,643 € 77,352 € 439 € 106% Berceni 1,054 € 47,447 € 45,545 € 259 € 96% 47,447 € 77,352 € 439 € 163% Bucureștii Noi 1,243 € 55,933 € 45,545 € 259 € 81% 55,933 € 77,352 € 439 € 138% Colentina 1,006 € 45,275 € 45,545 € 259 € 101% 45,275 € 77,352 € 439 € 171% Cotroceni 2,912 € 131,031 45,545 € 259 € 35% 131,031 77,352 € 439 € 59% € € Crângași 1,232 € 55,456 € 45,545 € 259 € 82% 55,456 € 77,352 € 439 € 139% Dacia- 2,015 € 90,680 € 45,545 € 259 € 50% 90,680 € 77,352 € 439 € 85% Eminescu Decebal-Calea 1,678 € 75,516 € 45,545 € 259 € 60% 75,516 € 77,352 € 439 € 102% Călărașilor Dorobanți- 2,147 € 96,610 € 45,545 € 259 € 47% 96,610 € 77,352 € 439 € 80% Floreasca Dristor-Vitan 1,312 € 59,050 € 45,545 € 259 € 77% 59,050 € 77,352 € 439 € 131% Vechi Drumul 1,023 € 46,043 € 45,545 € 259 € 99% 46,043 € 77,352 € 439 € 168% Taberei Ferdinand 1,853 € 83,384 € 45,545 € 259 € 55% 83,384 € 77,352 € 439 € 93% Ghencea 898 € 40,398 € 45,545 € 259 € 113% 40,398 € 77,352 € 439 € 191% Giulești 971 € 43,692 € 45,545 € 259 € 104% 43,692 € 77,352 € 439 € 177% Giurgiului 889 € 39,990 € 45,545 € 259 € 114% 39,990 € 77,352 € 439 € 193% Griviței-Gara 1,593 € 71,691 € 45,545 € 259 € 64% 71,691 € 77,352 € 439 € 108% de Nord Herăstrău- 2,425 € 109,115 45,545 € 259 € 42% 109,115 77,352 € 439 € 71% Nordului € € Iancului-Mihai 1,446 € 65,073 € 45,545 € 259 € 70% 65,073 € 77,352 € 439 € 119% Bravu Kiseleff- 2,287 € 102,918 45,545 € 259 € 44% 102,918 77,352 € 439 € 75% Aviatorilor € € 235 Affordability of housing built after 2000 - with loans monthly income RON 6885 Share of loan - apartment Share of loan - apartment / 1464 (with co-borrower price per sqm built after monthly income of RON Average price 45 sqm Average price 45 sqm maximum monthly maximum monthly 70% of his income) Maximum loan for Maximum loan for 4050 / EUR 862 neighborhood instalment instalment apartment apartment average value % value % 2000 Militari 974 € 43,811 € 45,545 € 259 € 104% 43,811 € 77,352 € 439 € 177% Moșilor 1,624 € 73,091 € 45,545 € 259 € 62% 73,091 € 77,352 € 439 € 106% Unknown 1,285 € 57,839 € 45,545 € 259 € 79% 57,839 € 77,352 € 439 € 134% Pantelimon 1,019 € 45,870 € 45,545 € 259 € 99% 45,870 € 77,352 € 439 € 169% Carol Park 1,903 € 85,633 € 45,545 € 259 € 53% 85,633 € 77,352 € 439 € 90% (Cantemir- Mărășești) Pipera 1,383 € 62,238 € 45,545 € 259 € 73% 62,238 € 77,352 € 439 € 124% Rahova 824 € 37,093 € 45,545 € 259 € 123% 37,093 € 77,352 € 439 € 209% Stefan Cel 1,794 € 80,715 € 45,545 € 259 € 56% 80,715 € 77,352 € 439 € 96% Mare Tei 1,825 € 82,147 € 45,545 € 259 € 55% 82,147 € 77,352 € 439 € 94% Tineretului- 1,618 € 72,831 € 45,545 € 259 € 63% 72,831 € 77,352 € 439 € 106% Timpuri Noi Titan 1,130 € 50,853 € 45,545 € 259 € 90% 50,853 € 77,352 € 439 € 152% Unirii 1,752 € 78,850 € 45,545 € 259 € 58% 78,850 € 77,352 € 439 € 98% Victoriei- 2,306 € 103,756 45,545 € 259 € 44% 103,756 77,352 € 439 € 75% Romană- € € Universitate Vitan Nou 1,567 € 70,533 € 45,545 € 259 € 65% 70,533 € 77,352 € 439 € 110% Source: own calculations 236 share of loan in the apartment value: 105%-125% 20 Access to housing by loans - single- share of loan in the apartment value: 90%-105% 10 borrower loan (housing built after share of loan in the apartment value: 80%-85% 2 2000) share of loan in the apartment value: 70%-80% -2 share of loan in the apartment value: 70%-45% -4 Figure 194. Access to housing by loans - single-borrower loan for housing built after 2000 Source: The authors 237 share of loan in the apartment value: 175% - 210% 30 Access to housing by loans - family share of loan in the apartment value: 105% - 175% 20 loan / with co-borrower (housing share of loan in the apartment value: 90%-105% 10 built after 2000) share of loan in the apartment value: 80%-85% 2 share of loan in the apartment value: 70%-45% -4 Figure 195. Access to housing by loans: family loan or with co-borrower for housing after 2000 Source: The authors 238 Affordability of housing built in 1977-2000 - without loans Number of wages necessary Number of wages necessary average price per sqm built to purchase the apartment to purchase the apartment 6885 / EUR 1464 (with co- monthly income of RON monthly income of RON Average price 45 sqm Average price 45 sqm borrower 70% of his between 1977-2000 4050 / EUR 862 neighborhood apartment apartment income) 1 Mai 1,649 € 74,192 € 862 € 86 74,192 € 1,464 € 51 13 Septembrie- 1,151 € 51,774 € 862 € 60 51,774 € 1,464 € 35 Panduri Aviatiei 1,812 € 81,561 € 862 € 95 81,561 € 1,464 € 56 Baneasa 1,565 € 70,404 € 862 € 82 70,404 € 1,464 € 11 Berceni 1,138 € 51,204 € 862 € 59 51,204 € 1,464 € 35 Bucurestii Noi 1,087 € 48,937 € 862 € 57 48,937 € 1,464 € 33 Colentina 1,162 € 52,303 € 862 € 61 52,303 € 1,464 € 36 Cotroceni 862 € 1,464 € Crangasi 1,205 € 54,240 € 862 € 63 54,240 € 1,464 € 37 Dacia-Eminescu 1,737 € 78,154 € 862 € 91 78,154 € 1,464 € 53 Decebal-Calea 1,620 € 72,917 € 862 € 85 72,917 € 1,464 € 50 Călărașilor Dorobanti- 2,120 € 95,405 € 862 € 111 95,405 € 1,464 € 65 Floreasca Dristor-Vitan 1,270 € 57,134 € 862 € 66 57,134 € 1,464 € 39 Vechi Drumul Taberei 1,107 € 49,799 € 862 € 58 49,799 € 1,464 € 34 Ferdinand 862 € 1,464 € Ghencea 1,073 € 48,266 € 862 € 56 48,266 € 1,464 € 33 Giulesti 1,152 € 51,848 € 862 € 60 51,848 € 1,464 € 35 Giurgiului 1,014 € 45,623 € 862 € 53 45,623 € 1,464 € 31 Grivitei-Gara de 862 € 1,464 € Nord Herastrau- 2,202 € 99,083 € 862 € 115 99,083 € 1,464 € 68 Nordului Iancului-Mihai 1,288 € 57,946 € 862 € 67 57,946 € 1,464 € 40 Bravu Kiseleff- 2,112 € 95,030 € 862 € 110 95,030 € 1,464 € 65 Aviatorilor Militari 1,125 € 50,608 € 862 € 59 50,608 € 1,464 € 35 Mosilor 1,451 € 65,289 € 862 € 76 65,289 € 1,464 € 45 Unknown 1,200 € 53,991 € 862 € 63 53,991 € 1,464 € 37 Pantelimon 1,150 € 51,759 € 862 € 60 51,759 € 1,464 € 35 Carol Park 1,543 € 69,443 € 862 € 81 69,443 € 1,464 € 47 (Cantemir- Mărășești) Pipera 862 € 1,464 € Rahova 1,000 € 45,012 € 862 € 52 45,012 € 1,464 € 31 Stefan Cel Mare 1,455 € 65,489 € 862 € 76 65,489 € 1,464 € 45 239 Affordability of housing built in 1977-2000 - without loans Number of wages necessary Number of wages necessary average price per sqm built to purchase the apartment to purchase the apartment 6885 / EUR 1464 (with co- monthly income of RON monthly income of RON Average price 45 sqm Average price 45 sqm borrower 70% of his between 1977-2000 4050 / EUR 862 neighborhood apartment apartment income) Tei 1,220 € 54,913 € 862 € 64 54,913 € 1,464 € 38 Tineretului- 1,520 € 68,398 € 862 € 79 68,398 € 1,464 € 47 Timpuri Noi Titan 1,175 € 52,888 € 862 € 61 52,888 € 1,464 € 36 Unirii 1,748 € 78,638 € 862 € 91 78,638 € 1,464 € 54 Victoriei- 1,902 € 85,605 € 862 € 99 85,605 € 1,464 € 58 Romana- Universitate Vitan Nou 1,381 € 62,142 € 862 € 72 62,142 € 1,464 € 42 Source: own calculations 240 Access to housing without loans - up to 60 wages (value for 5 years) 10 single buyer (housing built in 1977- from 61 to 96 wages (value for 8 years) 5 2000) more than 97 wages 2 Figure 196. Access to housing without loans: single buyer for housing built in 1977-2000 Source: The authors 241 up to 36 wages (value for 3 years) 20 Access to housing without loans - family / 2 buyers (housing built in 1977-2000) from 37-60 wages (value for 5 years) 10 from 61 to 96 wages (value for 8 years) 5 Figure 197. Access to housing without loans: family or 2 buyers for housing built in 1977-2000 Source: The authors 242 Affordability of housing built after 2000 - without loans 6885 / EUR 1464 (with co- necessary to purchase the necessary to purchase the monthly income of RON monthly income of RON average price per sqm Average price 45 sqm Average price 45 sqm borrower 70% of his Number of wages Number of wages built after 2000 4050 / EUR 862 neighborhood apartment apartment apartment apartment income) 1 Mai 1,710 € 76,953 € 862 € 89 76,953 € 1,464 € 53 13 Septembrie- 1,431 € 64,378 € 862 € 75 64,378 € 1,464 € 44 Panduri Aviatiei 1,879 € 84,554 € 862 € 98 84,554 € 1,464 € 58 Baneasa 1,614 € 72,643 € 862 € 84 72,643 € 1,464 € 50 Berceni 1,054 € 47,447 € 862 € 55 47,447 € 1,464 € 32 Bucurestii Noi 1,243 € 55,933 € 862 € 65 55,933 € 1,464 € 38 Colentina 1,006 € 45,275 € 862 € 53 45,275 € 1,464 € 31 Cotroceni 2,912 € 131,031 € 862 € 152 131,031 € 1,464 € 90 Crangasi 1,232 € 55,456 € 862 € 64 55,456 € 1,464 € 38 Dacia-Eminescu 2,015 € 90,680 € 862 € 105 90,680 € 1,464 € 62 Decebal-Calea 1,678 € 75,516 € 862 € 88 75,516 € 1,464 € 52 Calarasilor Dorobanti- 2,147 € 96,610 € 862 € 112 96,610 € 1,464 € 66 Floreasca Dristor-Vitan 1,312 € 59,050 € 862 € 69 59,050 € 1,464 € 40 Vechi Drumul Taberei 1,023 € 46,043 € 862 € 53 46,043 € 1,464 € 31 Ferdinand 1,853 € 83,384 € 862 € 97 83,384 € 1,464 € 57 Ghencea 898 € 40,398 € 862 € 47 40,398 € 1,464 € 28 Giulesti 971 € 43,692 € 862 € 51 43,692 € 1,464 € 30 Giurgiului 889 € 39,990 € 862 € 46 39,990 € 1,464 € 27 Grivitei-Gara de 1,593 € 71,691 € 862 € 83 71,691 € 1,464 € 49 Nord Herastrau- 2,425 € 109,115 € 862 € 127 109,115 € 1,464 € 75 Nordului Iancului-Mihai 1,446 € 65,073 € 862 € 75 65,073 € 1,464 € 44 Bravu Kiseleff- 2,287 € 102,918 € 862 € 119 102,918 € 1,464 € 70 Aviatorilor Militari 974 € 43,811 € 862 € 51 43,811 € 1,464 € 30 Mosilor 1,624 € 73,091 € 862 € 85 73,091 € 1,464 € 50 Unknown 1,285 € 57,839 € 862 € 67 57,839 € 1,464 € 40 Pantelimon 1,019 € 45,870 € 862 € 53 45,870 € 1,464 € 31 Carol Park 1,903 € 85,633 € 862 € 99 85,633 € 1,464 € 58 (Cantemir- Mărășești) Pipera 1,383 € 62,238 € 862 € 72 62,238 € 1,464 € 43 Rahova 824 € 37,093 € 862 € 43 37,093 € 1,464 € 25 Stefan cel Mare 1,794 € 80,715 € 862 € 94 80,715 € 1,464 € 55 Tei 1,825 € 82,147 € 862 € 95 82,147 € 1,464 € 56 243 Affordability of housing built after 2000 - without loans 6885 / EUR 1464 (with co- necessary to purchase the necessary to purchase the monthly income of RON monthly income of RON average price per sqm Average price 45 sqm Average price 45 sqm borrower 70% of his Number of wages Number of wages built after 2000 4050 / EUR 862 neighborhood apartment apartment apartment apartment income) Tineretului- 1,618 € 72,831 € 862 € 84 72,831 € 1,464 € 50 Timpuri Noi Titan 1,130 € 50,853 € 862 € 59 50,853 € 1,464 € 35 Unirii 1,752 € 78,850 € 862 € 91 78,850 € 1,464 € 54 Victoriei- 2,306 € 103,756 € 862 € 120 103,756 € 1,464 € 71 Romana- Universitate Vitan Nou 1,567 € 70,533 € 862 € 82 70,533 € 1,464 € 11 Source: own calculations 244 up to 60 wages (value for 5 years) 10 Access to housing without loans - single buyer from 61 to 96 wages (value for 8 years) 5 (housing built after 2000) more than 97 wages 2 Figure 198. Access to housing without loans: single buyer for housing built after 2000 Source: The authors 245 up to 36 wages (value for 3 years) 20 Access to housing without loans - family / 2 buyers (housing built after 2000) from 37-60 wages (value for 5 years) 10 from 61 to 96 wages (value for 8 years) 5 Figure 199. Access to housing without loans: family or 2 buyers for housing built after 2000 Source: The authors Eventually, the attractiveness index is the sum of all indicators analyzed. Multicriterial analysis and statistical modelling of such a wide set of factors support in-depth analysis. As defined from the very beginning, the attractiveness index is calculated for collective housing and it does not consider other types of activities, such as company relocation or retail building conversion etc., although many of the factors analyzed here can be applied to other types of functions as well. Consequently, we reached the following values of the attractiveness index for Bucharest: • Score between 120 and 145: Tineretului-Timpuri Noi, Dorobanți-Floreasca, Pipera, Aviației, Băneasa, Unirii and Victoriei-Romana-Universitate neighborhoods; 246 • Score between 110 and 120: Cotroceni, Decebal-Calea Călărașilor, Stefan Cel Mare, Vitan Nou, Kiseleff-Aviatorilor, Bucharest Noi, Titan, Herăstrău-Nordului, Moșilor neighborhoods; • Score between 100 and 110: Colentina, Carol Park (Cantemir-Mărășești), Tei, Crângași, Berceni, Iancului-Mihai Bravu, 1 Mai-Domenii, Dristor-Vitan Vechi and Drumul Taberei neighborhoods; • Score between 85 and 100: Griviței -Gara de Nord, 13 Septembrie-Panduri, Dacia-Eminescu, Pantelimon, Ghencea and Militari neighborhoods; • Score between 67 and 85: Ferdinand, Giulești, Rahova and Giurgiului neighborhoods. The classification confirms the conclusions and the trends highlighted by the real estate market analysis. Although the scores are similar for certain neighborhoods, the factors underpinning such scores are different. What is relevant for this study is that the methodology for the analysis of neighborhood attractiveness does have certain limitations, as proven by other international studies: certain components weigh more in a relocation decision. Among them, we identified the following: proximity to shopping malls, transport means or parks, distance from workplace or access to educational or healthcare services, all extremely subjective elements, which are strongly influenced by numerous other factors which are not included in this analysis, for example, emotional factors. Conclusions on creating attractive neighborhoods Based on the methodology outcomes, we may argue that the planning, design and development of spaces for people which should encompass both the aesthetic and the functional elements underpins the development of attractive neighborhoods, which foster an active community life. This is why, beyond the obvious issues which need improvement, the neighborhoods built before 1990 are still attractive, with a solid functional structure, where inhabitants live their entire lives, without thinking of relocation. The principles underpinning the design of these neighborhoods, should also be used in the development of new residential ensembles: • The design should take into consideration the surroundings, enabling the integration of natural characteristic, the preservation of vegetation and the inclusion of assimilation of the natural characteristics in the design; the preservation of important natural characteristics, such as wetlands and forests; • A land occupancy rate which is adequate for urban areas, by integrating various purposes, densities and types of buildings; the development of healthy spaces (distance between apartment blocks, favorable cardinal orientation etc.) • Accessibility and mobility by providing the necessary opportunities for optimal mobility for pedestrians, drivers or cyclists, by creating safe connections, accessible to all types of users: fast and easy access to the public transport network; • High quality buildings using resistant and high-quality construction materials which are compliant with the current requirements on energy efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions; integration of crime prevention systems and design for safe use; • Infrastructure and utilities designed and implemented against high standards; • High quality public services and amenities, both in terms of infrastructure available and of services provided; • Landscape planning, with the integration of natural areas within built-up areas, development of planted areas (interstitial spaces, roadside trees, small parks etc.); • Functional inclusion and mix; • Civic participation, by developing a sense of belonging, community empowerment and involvement in actions targeting their neighborhoods. An elderly-friendly community which provides them opportunities to contribute to the community life through volunteer activities. 247 Figure 200. Attractiveness index for Bucharest, as resulted following the analysis Source: The authors. 248 7 CONCLUSIONS This section presents the conclusions of the three analyses. In order to facilitate reading, we group the conclusions and discuss them separately, by type of analysis. Moreover, the conclusions are structured by theme, to enable systematic organization of the recommendations presented in the next section. 154 They are preceded by a brief assessment of the evolution of Bucharest in the past two decades, which represents a frame of reference. The functional relations between Bucharest and Ilfov have become more and more intense in the past two decades. Ilfov County has absorbed a significant share of the housing demand generated by the Capital City, which has led to an ample uncontrolled urban sprawl process. This urban dispersion has generated housing areas with an insufficient and unplanned street network, lacking important daily amenities. The lack of intervention by public authorities meant that the private sector had to cover for educational amenities. Municipal amenities, together with the vast majority of workplaces are still in Bucharest, therefore all arterial roads connecting Ilfov and the Capital are blocked during rush hours. Unfortunately, the uncontrolled development of the periphery and of the peri-urban layer is the outcome of incoordination between local authorities155, against the background of a faulty legal framework and of inefficient instruments to control the urban dispersion. The need for quality public transport has favored the development of the Bucharest-Ilfov Inter- Community Development Association for Public Transport (ADI TPBI), a crucial first step to improving housing accessibility and, implicitly, the quality of peri-urban areas. Nevertheless, public local authorities need to cooperate on urban development as well, in order to enable urban dispersion control and to remedy past mistakes. They should first finalize and correlate the main urban planning and land development documentations for the entire region, more specifically the General Urban Plan (PUG) of Bucharest City and the County Land Development Plan (CLDP) of Ilfov County. Currently, Bucharest is managed by a 2-tier system consisting in the General Municipality and in the sector municipalities, which somewhat burdens the balanced development of strategic areas, such as the Central area, the Dâmbovița watercourse or the Colentina chain of lakes. However, the management of the historical center is a successfully tested model which could be replicated with some improvements for other strategic development areas. Although a complex process, the administration and management patterns of Bucharest, including its links with Ilfov County, should be reconsidered on the medium- and long term. Although the new areas were built around the idea of high quality affordable or reasonably-priced housing, the result is not sustainable on the medium- and long term. The residents of the new neighborhoods waste a lot of time in traffic to get to their workplaces or to benefit from daily-use amenities when they are not in the proximity. The local public administration will bear a very high cost for these errors unless it intervenes while there still are land reserves available. An option for the urban sprawl areas developed around the high capacity transport infrastructure (Apărătorii Patriei or Berceni) would be to convert the current 4th and 5th class streets (with sidewalks narrower than 1 m) into shared spaces/living streets or to define the area as residential in terms of traffic flow, to facilitate safe access by bicycle or scooters to the subway stations. However, such an operation will require design guidelines and the reconfiguration of the street network in Bucharest and in Ilfov County, so as 154 See Section 8. 155 Currently, they are 25: the Bucharest Municipality and the sector municipalities, the municipalities of the communes and cities within the first layer of localities and in Ilfov County. 249 to address specifically the planning of shared spaces/living streets,156 traffic calming options and solutions to insert the bicycle infrastructure and the amenities for very low scale mobility services.157 Although Bucharest is already one of the densest cities din Europe, the densification process still continues. In residential areas like Grivița, Bucureștii Noi, Cotroceni or Dorobanți, the built-up stock is gradually replaced, and the free plots are being developed with buildings which exceed the average building height in the area (mostly P+3/4 – P+6, i.e. ground floor + 3/4 - 6 upper stories). This generates pressure on the existing amenities, which were designed for a different capacity, and leads to lower housing quality, manifested in the traffic jams, sidewalks crowded with vehicles parked unlawfully, poor sunshine supply etc. We note similar circumstances in the collective housing neighborhoods characterized by punctual insertions of apartment blocks with no additional amenities. The densification of the collective housing neighborhoods, together with the increase in the motor vehicle rates, have turned more and more condominium green areas into residential parking lots. Urban dispersion is also visible at the periphery of the city. Important land resources in areas such as Anghel Saligny or Prelungirea Ghencea are gradually turned into residential areas with no overall design in mind. The occasional developments at the periphery of the city display a poorly developed street network, an acute lack of amenities and maximum use of the plot of land. There are still land reserves which could remedy the development of these areas, through a neighborhood planning process.158 Available land reserves should be used first and foremost to ensure the necessary infrastructure and amenities, both for the existing situation and for future developments. For neighborhoods in the Southern part of Bucharest, such land reserves should be used for large green areas and for supplementing the transport infrastructure. There are already big park development projects for areas such as Prelungirea Ghencea and Ghencea-Rahova or plans to develop a new boulevard between the Progresul and Filaret train stations, in order to capitalize on the former Rocar industrial platform. Recent and planned office building developments are still concentrated in the North and Centre areas, while residential projects still focus on the periphery. This ongoing trend places more and more pressure on an already overburdened transport infrastructure. In order to balance traffic flows, it is crucial to support a polycentric development in the Capital City. Relying on the high capacity transport infrastructure, consisting in subway and tramway routes, secondary centers should be developed in the proximity of large collective dwellings ensembles. 7.1 Conclusions of the analysis on housing in Bucharest We are now able to present the following set of conclusions, structured from the dwelling level to the Bucharest metropolitan area level: 1 Both the useful floor parameter and the room structure are almost homogeneous for apartment blocks in Bucharest. However, it is the very high availability of studios or 2-room apartments, compared to the other size categories, that underpins the residential mobility which, in turn, is linked to the evolution of family dynamics. Therefore, this should be one of the main concerns for meeting the housing needs when developing new residential areas. Moreover, the definition and delimitation of the new residential areas should explicitly consider the pressures placed on extending the utility networks, the transport infrastructure and the amenities. Moreover, the level of comfort does not only depend on the size of residential spaces, on their building style and, implicitly, on their location and accessibility or urban amenities, but also on the type of housing - collective or individual. Consequently, it is almost impossible to 156 Shared Space/Living Street. 157 Micromobility. 158 Currently, we rather speak of plot planning or of ensemble planning, at best. 250 draft a set of unitary standards for assessing the level of comfort, as they depend not only on the residents’ income, but also on their age; 2 The amenities planned and developed following the building standards of the 1970s for complex housing units provided them with the necessary retail, services and educational amenities for quite a long while. At present, however, the proliferation of shopping malls in all the areas of the city have changed the paradigm of the city center, by concentrating within one large scale building all retail categories necessary for the city inhabitants. Therefore, the role and the functional components of the amenities should be fundamentally redesigned. Here we should add the following comments resulting from the empirical analysis: • The city center needs targeted renewal policies which should explicitly tackle the issues of mobility, earthquake risk and improving the quality of life. • Drumul Taberei, Titan – Balta Albă and Berceni are areas with collective dwellings which require dedicated interventions targeting the ageing population, from social services provision to leisure and relaxation areas; • Cotroceni, Vatra Luminoasă, Bucureștii Noi, and Andronache are individual housing areas which also require dedicated interventions targeting the ageing population; • Developing areas such as Băneasa and Aviației require more urban amenities; • Neighborhood centers should become attractions for those neighborhoods; they could be developed through dedicated urban projects, fine-tuned to meet the residents’ needs; • Ferentari, Sălaj and Industriilor areas require more public amenities, the improvement of the existing ones and implementation of targeted public policies, as they host a marginalized, mostly young population; • Improving the quality of public services in sensitive areas depends directly on interventions in high-density areas, to compensate for the lack of other elements which are part of the quality of life and urban comfort; • The areas at the periphery require a renewal of the city land reserve, to be able to cope with the necessary public amenities imposed by the new residential projects. They should also be included in a wider green space system connected to the city network, and it has become absolutely necessary to reserve key plots for the future parks of Bucharest; • It is necessary to collect data on sanitation, to follow up on the situation, and to fight insalubrity with dedicated and closely monitored policies. Moreover, the building stock analyses we performed confirm several characteristics identified both by the General Urban Plan of Bucharest City which is still in force (PUG 2000) and by the support studies for the New General Urban Plan of Bucharest City (the Dynamic PUG): • More than 50% of the housing stock in Bucharest is older than 50 years. Additionally, the fact that most dwellings are privately owned is a disadvantage for the implementation of the building rehabilitation policies, because it entails the existence of dedicated and efficient negotiation mechanisms between the Municipality and the owners. Unfortunately, the mechanisms available are not sufficiently mature; • The provision of adequate urban facilities, given the high population density in the large housing ensembles, is still a challenge which the Municipality should tackle promptly and efficiently; • The trend to expand the periphery by building mainly individual dwellings requires the design of specific policies which should limit the uncontrolled expansion of low-density projects, because they lead to inefficient land use. As for the population age, the trends are relatively clear: 251 • The central perimeter includes areas with a relatively high share (more than 20%) of elderly population, living in the housing stock built before 1945; • The periphery is characterized by uncontrolled expansion, with dwellings occupied mostly by a young population; • There are vast areas with undersized plots, but with a large share of young population, overlapping areas of extreme poverty. 3 The typological diversity is the main feature of the residential buildings in Bucharest, whether we speak of their age, building systems, or housing pattern. Consequently, there is a need for differentiated policies on housing stock maintenance and development, especially due to the heterogeneous urban fabric. The most obvious examples are the areas with one-story dwellings placed behind tall apartment blocks which border the arterial roads, or the brutal insertions of new buildings within the existing urban fabric; 4 The dynamics of legislation and of the technical rules and standards in the field of housing and in related fields mirrors the ongoing social and economic transformations. As regards the technical part of the design and construction of residential buildings, the dynamics is somewhat in line with the economic developments and architectural aesthetics of the era. However, things are quite different when we speak of urban development guidelines and rules. From detailed plans to city scale rules and regulations, most of them are obsolete regulations (for instance, the General Urban Plan of Bucharest City dates back from 2001, which has required the development of Zonal Urban Plans in order to adapt the city to the new needs), or they are difficult to coordinate, leading to unpredictable outcomes in terms of housing quality. 5 Bucharest does not have a coherent residential real estate development policy defined, and the liberalization of housing has not led to a systematic development of the utilities networks and of the access routes, or even to a resizing of the existing roads. Additionally, components complementary to housing, especially retail and services, are subject exclusively to market rules. Since the housing and amenities market in Bucharest is not always functional, negative externalities appear which are usually paid by the final buyers; 6 Given the fact that Bucharest has developed together with its adjacent areas, housing is gradually becoming a problem of the entire metropolitan area. Consequently, the Urban Agglomeration of Bucharest is highly important in the development of housing policies for Bucharest. To conclude, Bucharest displays great variation in the organization of residential areas, from those encompassed by the individual housing network to the large residential ensembles, which are as large as some medium or large cities in Romania. This variety of residential areas requires carefully nuanced approaches on the use of public investments, first of all for public investments in the maintenance of infrastructure and communications networks, and for guiding the new residential developments by means of the Local Urban Planning Regulations (LUPR). 7.2 Conclusions of the analysis on public spaces in Bucharest Following the qualitative and quantitative analysis, we can make the following comments: 1. Surface spaces can be found mainly in areas with high population density, such as the Pantelimon, Vatra Luminoasă, Kiseleff, Drumul Taberei, or Balta Albă-Titan neighborhoods. Unfortunately, these vast areas are interventions performed prior to 1989. No major interventions to create representative public spaces at city level, whether parks or public squares, have been implemented in the past 30 years. As regards the public spaces belonging to the large socialist ensembles, we can note as follows: The large ensembles built in the 1960s and in the 1980s used the so-called “open urban planning” where, from the small units to the large ensemble, the layout of apartment blocks proposed various 252 spatial configurations which included green areas, highlighted attractions and made use of the natural background. The result was an airy composition, with a subtle pace, both within and at the building fronts. Conversely, “closed urban planning” is characterized by uninterrupted enclosures and building fronts. At neighborhood level, the public space means the neighborhoods garden, if any, or along road axes with a generous pedestrian space. The neighborhood center was usually placed half-distance between the neighborhood extremities (for equal opportunities) or, in isolated cases, near a water course/lake. Its structure and size depended on the number and type of amenities, but also on the provision of facilities to host specific events (political, cultural, traditional gatherings or performances). The large ensembles included retail and services micro-centers, placed within distances provided by rules and standards, to satisfy daily and occasional needs. At city level, we have the new central squares developed either as hybrids (old frame-new interventions) or by full replacement of the former city “center” or by selecting a location outside the traditional city center. At the end of the ‘60 and of the 1970s, the political system imposed the shift to Soviet practices, more specifically the structuring of residential developments in large housing units, more specifically “districts”, also structured in several “microdistricts” consisting in “housing groups”. The principle used was the “neighborhood unit”, borrowed from the French experience (which was closer to the “scientific socialism”) which proposed that the residential ensemble should use peripheral road traffic (which penetrations which have no negative impact on pedestrian mobility), should group the main amenities at the core of the ensemble (favoring pedestrian access), which should also have green areas. In the 1960s we witness the shift from the name “district” to that of “neighborhood”, while maintaining the underpinning principles of the previous stage, and later the name of “complex housing unit” will be adopted. With the “large ensembles”, the Romanian urban planning practice starts using standards: • At city level, on: the share of functional areas in the total built-up area; detailed road traffic description; necessary major amenities, depending on the demographic dynamics; • At residential area level: total foot area/resident; amenities capacity by categories, depending on the population characteristics; the need for green areas (see maximum walking distance to amenities - from strictly necessary to those rarely used); level of sunlight per apartment etc. The neighborhood center, with its structure and amenities, provided a place of social connection. 2. The lack of interventions in the public space is visible especially at the periphery, where we find the vast majority of new developments. This overlaps to the lack of other necessary amenities. In the forthcoming years, these two aspects will become a critical issue for the new developments. Therefore, the abandoned spaces are a crucial land resource which, with minimum rehabilitation investments, could compensate some of the missing leisure areas in the new neighborhoods; 3. Although Sectors 2 and 6 lack vast planned public spaces like we see in the other sectors (Herăstrău Park, Tineretului Park, Titan Park, Văcărești Delta), they benefit from various medium- or small-sized gardens (2-10 ha) which manage to serve with relative success most of the population. Against this background, Sector 5 is still lagging behind, with relatively few point-like spaces or surface spaces; 4. There is a still relatively high number of surface spaces which need rehabilitation; architectural and urban planning competitions could be organized for this purpose. The spaces identified for each sector are as follows: Bazilescu Park (Sector 1), Motodrom Park, Sticlăriei Park and Verdi Park (Sector 2), Constantin Brâncuși Park, Unirii Park, Swimming Pool Cara-Titan (Sector 3), Nature Park Văcărești (Sector 4), Centenarului Park, Romniceanu Park, Izvor Park (Sector 5) and the Island Lacul Morii and Grozăvești Park (Sector 6). Some of these spaces are already subject to a renewal process, which must be continued, finalized and, eventually, completed with other new spaces. 253 5. There is no unitary approach at city level to provide access to the city water elements: The chain of lakes and Dâmbovița. This is noticeable due to the scattered distribution of the point- like and surface spaces. Sector 2 is the exception from the rule, as green spaces of various sizes have been created here in the past 10 years. However, most water banks are still not accommodated or accessible to the public. Recent individual housing developments along the water have compromised access to significant parts of the lake banks. 6. Adequate provision of equipment and facilities should be in place so as to enable the valorization of lake banks for Colentina River for leisure purposes. This should be supported in partnership with the neighboring ATUs. 7. Also, the city green space network is not complete yet. There is a need to insert connecting elements (streets with roadside vegetation) and point-like elements, such as squares, gardens, which should animate the routes. Also, it is necessary to create green corridors towards the Southern part of the city, which should be connected to Dâmbovița, towards the city center. 8. The city still includes vast undeveloped areas with high potential which require prompt renewal interventions (Văcărești Delta); 9. There are no vast public spaces in the central area, mainly in the Eastern part of the main traffic ring; 10. Where the need for public space cannot be fulfilled with large spaces, it is crucial to design a scattered system, with equal territorial distribution, including small-sized spaces interconnected with the main public space network of the city; 11. Playgrounds account for a relatively high share of the small-sized spaces. Although, apparently, turning such spaces into playgrounds is a positive thing, the fact that there is almost no variety and that they are most often designed exclusively for a single age category is a daunting weakness in shaping the identity of Bucharest neighborhoods and fostering intergenerational interactions; 12. Point-like public spaces are relatively well dispersed in the territory and have a diverse morphological structure which enables their renewal and integration into wider public space systems. School yards are an important land resource for the city. They could be converted into semi-public spaces, accessible for communities after the school hours; 13. The point-like public spaces, usually represented by squares or playgrounds for children, are placed mainly in the center area or within collective housing facilities. However, the need for small-sized public spaces is felt especially in the areas with individual dwellings (Andronache, Industriilor, Cotroceni etc.); 14. A significant share of the point-like spaces identified only benefit from basic amenities (minimalist urban furniture, limited public lightning etc.). Many of these point-like spaces need new rehabilitation interventions, to turn them into attractions for the inhabitants in that area; 15. Most rehabilitation interventions on small-sized spaces were carried out using improper materials, without a unitary concept and without attention to details. Such an approach will prove inefficient with time, because such spaces will require higher maintenance costs; 16. A large share of the point-like spaces can be renewed by architectural and urban planning competitions or by urban acupuncture interventions promoted by the public administration. Such an approach requires decision-making transparency and a deeper sense of belonging for city residents; 17. There still is a relatively high number of abandoned public spaces, mainly along the west- east direction and in the central area. Such spaces could be regenerated under public-private partnerships, with low costs but with important impact on enhancing the quality of life. In the central area, such spaces are represented by the land in front of the Romanian Academy 254 which, together with Unirii Square, Esplanada and Alba Iulia Square could become the object of a complex rehabilitation intervention along the west-east axis; 18. In general, the public spaces network does not include large squares or pedestrian areas which could cater for events of interest for the community and visitors; 19. The redesign of public spaces in the neighborhoods should consider the reconfiguration of the current vehicle parking systems. Where possible, it is recommended to turn all above ground space into community space and to build underground parking lots. 20. The redesign of urban island at neighborhood level allows, in most cases, for gaining additional spaces, which can be turned into free or built spaces, dedicated to communities; 21. School yards are an important land resource for the city. They could be converted into semi- public spaces, accessible for communities after the school hours; 22. Linear spaces are located mainly along the large roads (Timișoara Blvd, Pantelimon Blvd, Ștefan cel Mare Blvd etc.). These arterial roads benefit from generous sidewalks, usually delimited by roadside vegetation, and host commercial and public food activities. Although their capacity matches the current pedestrian flows, the quality of the urban picture is rather poor. The pavement is degraded, the aesthetic quality of the first ground functions is poor, the urban furniture is damaged, there are no bicycle lanes to facilitate safe traffic both for pedestrians and for cyclists etc.; 23. The placement of the existing bicycle lanes along the linear spaces indicates a lack of coherence in terms of dedicated routes for alternative transport means at city level. Moreover, the existing routes do not shape a coherent course connecting the representative areas of the city; 24. The network of linear spaces could be supplemented within the middle ring, where some of the secondary streets could take over this quality public space role, but they are still blocked by the vehicles parked on the sidewalks. The next chapters provide a more detailed analysis on this aspect. 25. Phased, short- medium- and long-term activities are necessary for the secondary network of linear spaces from the city center, as follows: short-term - to encourage communication and awareness actions through street art, to introduce more administrative tools to enable and to encourage nuanced and diversified use of the street (e.g., the possibility to rent a pedestrian area/carriageway for business, the introduction of the concept of temporary pedestrian use, financial and bureaucratic incentives to organize street events etc.), to introduce an incipient data collection system at administrative level; medium-term - to introduce an integrated street management-development tool (real time management, monitoring and adjustment of street parameters), to introduce paid parking along the pavement margins, to develop joint strategies on the real estate market; long-term: the integrated management-development tool proposed for the previous phase will be useful to mediate the major changes which will occur in the field of urban mobility: 1. The radical change of the idea of personal vehicle, the spread of the electric and self-driven cars, 2. The diversification and fragmentation of means of transport, 3 The development and implementation of projects and policies to address the climate change and improve public health. Similarly, we structured thematically a set of general conclusions on public spaces, applicable in Bucharest. 1. The quality of the public spaces influences the way in which people, communities and entrepreneurs interact in the city. Ideally, public spaces generate added-value by fostering diversity and social inclusion, by facilitating the exchange of knowledge, goods and services. A quality public space is attractive, vibrant, comfortable, accessible, pleasant and safe for all residents, including for the elderly and for persons with disabilities. Most often, such a place 255 entails cooperation between the public and private sectors throughout its implementation and lifecycle. On the other hand, poorly designed public spaces can have a negative impact on the city productivity and vitality and, in extreme cases, can generate divided communities; 2. We mention below some of the factors which contribute to limiting the benefits of a public space: • Limited local capacity to plan, finance, implement and maintain public spaces; • Hierarchical solutions159, which often generate spaces which do not meet the needs of the community from a specific area; • Poorly developed maintenance and operational mechanisms which result in the degradation of public spaces, with an impact on the provision of related services; • The lack of necessary public domain so as to create new public spaces and poor or no control by authorities of private developments which most often do not cover the public space needs for future residents. 3. Public authorities have to find efficient solutions for the implementation and management of public spaces, throughout their lifecycle, from planning and design to maintenance, rehabilitation and, where necessary, complete replacement. The issue of space management also derives from the need to cater both for socialization needs and for functional-urban needs. This approach indicates, at least, the type and the scale of the intervention and, consequently, the necessary resources. More specifically, the scale of the approach can vary from a local approach, focused on managing a small number of spaces, to strategic approaches, focused on the management of public space networks at city level (see Figure 201); 4. This phased approach which relies on defining intervention priorities by types of spaces can be considered the opposite of the approach which involves simultaneous remedial interventions in all public spaces. These different approaches are either a reflection of short- term benefits pursued by authorities, or are based on the analysis of the needs of the population they target, as part of a long-term vision; 5. Although there is no recipe for action which can be equally applied in all cities, we can define at least four different approaches, as follows: • Actions for the rehabilitation of existing public spaces and the recovery of residual spaces within the city or of underused spaces. Residual spaces along infrastructure elements like bridges, technical areas or streets are valuable urban spaces, and they can be developed and integrated within a wider network of pedestrian and leisure areas. More specifically, such actions explore opportunities to claim existing unused spaces along major infrastructure elements; • Actions for the development of new public spaces, which entail the allotment of public property land, mainly in the periphery areas which are undergoing an urbanization process. Here we include the use of natural assets which are public property (forests, wetlands), which can become leisure and recreation areas; • Actions to provide public services in underprivileged neighborhoods. They entail public space planning at the same time with public facilities such as community centers, libraries, healthcare centers etc. • Actions to connect public spaces through a network of pedestrian connections and bicycle lanes, with community amenities functioning as nodal points. 159 Top–Down. 256 Figure 201. A conceptual framework for public space management Source: Adapted after Kaw et al., 2020: 8. 6. Depending on the specific context and challenges of a city, public authorities should choose the most appropriate strategy for public space development. Approaches can vary between: rehabilitation and renewal or full replacement, tactical urbanism and urban acupuncture or comprehensive planning and integration/synergies with the technical infrastructure and with the existing valuable assets:160 • The rehabilitation is necessary when a public space is damaged, but its role in the neighborhood is vital; • The transformation or conversion, which entails the entire change of the function and use of a public space, is necessary when the city does not have new assets available in a certain area. For example, transformation can entail a reconversion of parking spots into a green square or repurposing a public building which is not used according to its capacity, so as to become community space; • Tactical urbanism, which needs low-cost interventions, with quick results and significant impact, can be used in those areas where the aim is to enhance community trust in public authorities. However, unless it is supported by wider city-level policies and Programs, this approach only means short-term impact;161 160 See Kaw et al., 2020: 14 161 A positive example is the action I AM KARACHI, which started as citizens’ initiative involving the temporary display of art works in the public space and the sanitisation of other areas of interest in the proximity. Later on, the movement gained 257 • Comprehensive planning is the most complex of all approaches and is often necessary when there is no wider development vision at city level. Such an approach requires medium- and long-term implementation and is supported by the existing legal framework on planning. Such an approach should focus on urban regeneration, on turning streets into pedestrian-friendly spaces and on developing public space networks across the city; • The integration with the technical infrastructure requires the development of double- purpose public spaces: leisure and green infrastructure, which uses natural solutions for rainwater management. Such infrastructure contributes to better flood resilience and can cater for large scale integration with wetland areas (for example, Văcărești Delta), while valorizing their biodiversity; • The integration with cultural heritage elements is necessary in historical areas, where investments in public space contribute to the renewal of damaged areas; 7. The appointment and the responsibilities of the entity managing the organization, commencement and implementation of such actions may differ, depending on the public space size, on its importance for the urban communities and on the scale of intervention (interventions implemented by the sector municipalities or by the General Municipality of Bucharest). 8. Stakeholder identification is a prerequisite for efficient implementation (see Table 15). They can be direct beneficiaries (civil society) or public-private partnerships (as action triggers). However, the local public administration holds the main role in reaching the public space objectives. The action line needs population involvement at least in two phases: consultation, and the possibility to establish partnerships, and post-implementation management. The actions will also rely on the political decisions of the local administrations and on the legal instruments available for the municipalities. They include Local Council Decisions and Urban Planning Studies and Documentations; Table 15. Types of approaches in creating public spaces Person in charge of Person in charge Ownership Type of access Examples implementation of management Public parks, public Public authority Public 162 or squares, other (local budget) or Public authority Public domain limited, as types of other funding appropriate community sources amenities Public authority Large scale public Public property, via (local budget) or Public or limited163, Private entities facilities (schools, transfer other funding as appropriate libraries etc.) sources Property rented by Public authority the public (local budget) or Public or limited, Private entities Private property authority from other funding as appropriate private entities sources (facilities to host a systematic support by the launch of international wall painting competitions in the neighbourhood, the rehabilitation of amenities in the main square, in cooperation with private businesses, the development of sports programmes in the existing sports facilities etc. 162 Public access means spaces which do not restrict access and do not require the payment of an entrance fee. 163 Private access means spaces which are not open for the public general. 258 Person in charge of Person in charge Ownership Type of access Examples implementation of management library, a community center etc.) Private public Private entities Private property Private entity Public spaces Public spaces Limited or developed on Private entities Private property Private entity private164, as shopping centers appropriate roofs Source: adapted after Kaw et al., 2020: 11 9. Action phasing and dynamic management, with flexibility in fine-tuning punctual intervention methods is a key principle, in line with any possible change of needs or of financial resources. This principle is also valid in case of longer-term actions, targeting strategic city-scale options. 10. For more efficient public space management actions, there are certain methodological steps which should be understood and implemented by the local public administration bodies. Various stages will be considered for the implementation of such actions, as the sequence presented in this document. Such stages can involve feedback165 interactions and can be customized for each intervention. The actions include the following general stages: • Set the public space identification criteria and perform their actual identification; • Perform their multicriteria classification; • Understand the intervention needs, according to the classification; • Draft the overall objectives (which target more of the public spaces analyzed) and the individual objectives (for each public space); • Determine the intervention priorities, evaluate the necessary resources and ensure adequate financial resources; • Indicate the necessary actions to be carried out during the implementation process; • Monitoring the implementation and post-intervention management activities. The intervention actions described at point 10 involve the following stages: 1. Select the spaces subject to analysis. This will focus on the operational goals of the actions (implementation of analytic criteria). This requires to define and select some overall criteria which consider not only the physical parameters which can be identified in specialist literature, but also elements which could be part of the development strategies for the wider territory targeted by the policies developed by public authorities involved. This general stage will also include an analysis on the advisability of developing new public spaces. This operational stage will build on: • Identification and mapping of neighborhood (residential ensemble) and city amenities; • Identification of land plots and buildings owned by public authorities and of spaces and land plots related to abandoned buildings and their use to improve public amenities; 164 Limited access means spaces where access is restricted to a specific timetable or which require the payment of an entrance fee or prior registration. 165 Feedback. 259 • Identification of buildings and parts of buildings which (could) host local amenities and of the related land plots, with the potential to develop existing public spaces or to generate new ones. 2. Analyze the spaces selected for interventions; 3. The goal of this stage is to define the intervention ranking criteria and to establish the public space actions. This will include a critical analysis which will highlight the qualities and the dysfunctionalities which will initiate actions: 4. From an operational perspective, this stage will define the morphological and functional parameters of the public spaces selected;166 5. This stage will also define the ranking criteria for those parameters which define each public space, so as to describe the intervention actions; 6. Define objectives; 7. This stage will define the community operational objectives set following the specialist analysis and public consultation, and the functional and operational objectives which target both the physical parameters, and the action management objectives; 8. This stage will define objectives based on symbolic criteria, able to contribute to the development of an identity of the public spaces, both at city scale and at smaller community scale. This will also include the brief presentation of alternative intervention strategies; 9. Define public space actions: 10. Such actions will include: • Define the necessary types of interventions and general types of actions; • Develop action coordination analytical matrices for each type of public space considered; • Analytical synthesis on the operations proposed for the public spaces. 11. The types of interventions can vary, depending the public space morphology: • “Concentrated” (shopping malls, food markets, major cultural amenities, public spaces around places of worship); • “Linear”, along major pedestrian axes (space of public importance located at the ground floor of collective dwellings or along uninterrupted building fronts); • “Small-sized linear” (generally defined by the historical -spatial evolution of the urban fabric); 12. Preparatory actions: • Evaluate and finalize all necessary financial and planning arrangements; • Describe the timing and location of actions involved in public space interventions (Gantt chart); • Establish the operational structures for the actions and the implementation of specific measures; 13. Types of possible public space actions 14. Possible actions include: • The functional rehabilitation of the amenities which define the public space, the improvement of existing amenities; • The functional restructuring of the amenities which define the public space (change the purpose of such amenities); 166 See Section 0. 260 • Spatial and functional remodeling a) Construction actions (demolition, rehabilitation and extensions/floor additions to existing buildings, new buildings); b) Rehabilitation and extension of planted areas; c) Microtopographic modification works; d) Modification (improvement) of accessibility (pedestrian, public transport, road transport - including parking lots). • Landscape rehabilitation of pedestrian outdoor public spaces: a) Pavement, stairs, landscape architecture, urban furniture, including water pools, bicycle and scooter parking facilities, shelters; b) Outdoor lightning, Wi-Fi access. 7.3 Conclusions of the analysis of the Bucharest real estate market The analysis of the real estate market evolution during the past decade has revealed, as expected, a strong development of the Northern area which, due to the constant investment in retail of office buildings, strengthened the premium residential market. The North area is attractive especially due to the enhanced accessibility to the international airport, and to its important leisure and recreation amenities. Thus, the development gaps between the North and the South areas have deepened in the past ten years, unlike pre-1990, when the planning and development of working-class neighborhoods/bedroom neighborhoods aimed at a balanced development across all cardinal directions. What should be mentioned is that after 1990, investments in the residential real estate development were made by private developers, and the investments were influenced by their access to funding, to favorable locations (with or without adequately seized utilities or with direct access to the subway stations), and the quality of indoor and outdoor spaces depended a lot of the land plot size, orientation etc. Thus, while planning was essential before 1990, with the local authorities playing a crucial role in the development of the city, after 1990 this role was adopted by private investors, who invested mostly punctually (by adding to already built-up areas, by changing the typology of a residential area dominated by individual housing or by developing new peripheral areas/areas without buildings). There is a crucial difference between the existing and the newly-developed neighborhoods: the level of amenities is different, as the former had developed around pre-existing amenities, leading to shortages, with time. Investors focused initially on the central area, by using the remaining land resources, and then they extended towards the city periphery (where the land was cheaper), after which they turned their eyes towards the inner-city areas. The only neighborhoods which enjoyed constant attention are those located in the Northern area, but due to their positioning in the real estate market, they target mostly customers with income above average. Consequently, we note new development areas, such as Străulești (along Gheorghe Ionescu Șisești street, for example), which has had an accelerated development after the subway route connecting it to the city center, through the Basarab node, was finalized. The same preferences were noted for office buildings locations, new CBD development or new developments in the Northern area or along the subway routes. The retail centers scattered across the four cardinal points cover residents’ needs in all neighborhoods; however, we note a higher concentration in the North and West areas. Residential market. Just like the other markets analyzed, the residential market is growing, although with much lower return on investment. The sale price decline in 2008 was present until 2014 (reference year at national level) - when prices started increasing again, and this segment has witnessed an upward trend ever since. Although Bucharest ranks lowest in terms of average apartment price in Europe, with an average value 12 times lower than the top value reported by London, we can 261 say that the real estate market is still attractive, in an economic climate which allows for growth and which becomes favorable for the investment of savings, where the interest rates offered by banks are much lower than in the case of savings deposits. The Romanian residential market is lagging behind the Western market in terms of property structure, with more than 95% of the dwellings being individual property, which left the rental market undeveloped and unregulated. Another very important aspect which should not be overlooked in the analysis of this indicator is its correlation with the purchase power, the average wage and the interest rates. Similar to the average selling prices, Bucharest registers the lowest average rent values at European level, only Sofia reporting lower values. The share of privately owned dwellings makes the residential buildings rehabilitation/renewal processes more difficult, as they require different procedures compared to property owned by local authorities. The preference for privately owned dwellings stems both from the local culture and from the access to loans, as the rent value for a 2-room apartment is comparable to a mortgage loan instalment. The analysis and the evolution of the selling offer, by type of apartment, indicates the following aspects: • For studios: the most significant average price increases were registered in Sector 1 and Sector 2 (in 2016-2018), followed by Sectors 3 and 4. The increase in the average price in Sector 6 has been relatively constant since 2014, about 5%, favored by the presence of the Regie student campus and of the Politehnica University; • For 2-room apartments: the most significant average price increases were registered in Sector 1 and Sector 2 (in 2016-2018), without much exceeding the average values registered by the other sectors. Due to the First House Program, the 2-room apartments demand still exceeds the supply (the average price of a 2-room apartment can be covered by a mortgage loan guaranteed by the state - more specifically EUR 65,000); • For 3-room apartment: the most significant average price increases were registered in Sector 3 (with a peak level in 2017), followed by Sectors 2, 5 and 6. This is a special segment, targeting families with children which, as obvious, are trying to relocate in better equipped areas (especially in terms of education institutions); • The four-room apartment market, as indicated by the previous analyses, has been the most stable category during the reference period. Obviously, this market was also impacted by the decline in prices after the real estate boom, however, being a niche market, which targets a population segment with average and above average income (due to the high acquisition price), it maintained its niche customers. At the same time, the available stocks for sale are much smaller compared to the 2-room and 3-room apartment stocks, which account for the majority stock. For this segment, the best evolution by far was registered by Sector 5, more specifically, the central part of the city. All other sectors registered about 5%-6% increases in the average price. The analysis of residential developments with units available for sale supports the results of the study: the periphery is dominated by large scale residential ensembles, with the exception of the West and East sub-markets. The Southern markets remains the least popular, especially Rahova neighborhood - where there are still plots of land located in accessible area, with growth potential. The West sub- market, due to the prospect of a newly finalized subway route, is very active. 262 Figure 202. Average indicative price, EUR/m2, for a 2-room apartment within 10-minute walk from the nearest subway station, January 2020 Source: Own calculations for estimated prices, starting from the offer presented and available on real estate webpages, corroborated with the results of the study and with the typology of dwellings located near subway stations. They are just snapshots, and are not final, the acquisition prices vary according to many other factors which were not considered in this estimation. The investments announced for the forthcoming period, whether in the residential or office space markets, focus around those areas where there are (ongoing or future) infrastructure development projects. We note the expansion and diversification of the investment areas, with new development options in the West or East sub-markets. The South area still provides investment opportunities, both due to low prices and to the availability of land either free of constructions or occupied by non- operational industries (large plot of land, connected to all necessary utilities). We note increasing interest in the inner-city investments due to the limitation of travel time, and strengthening of ex- centric poles, such as Timpuri Noi or Expoziției. 263 Figure 203. Average indicative monthly rent, EUR/month, for a 2-room apartment within 10-minute walk from the nearest subway station, January 2020 Source: Own calculations for estimated prices, starting from the offer presented and available on real estate webpages, corroborated with the results of the study and with the typology of dwellings located near subway stations; they are just snapshots, and are not final, the prices vary according to many other factors which were not considered in this estimation (apartment condition, furbishing or finishings, newer or older apartments etc.); this estimate does not include recurrent utility expenditure. Office market. Despite an economic slowdown in the economic growth rate at the European Union level, the office market in 2019 (and in the forthcoming years) will be stable, due to the increase of prime rental values, with a decrease of vacant offices and increasing demand (since 2017 - reference year - when new peak values for space occupancy rates and minimum values for vacancy rates were reached). The total office building stock in Bucharest reached peak values in 2019, and together with the regional cities analyzed, it shapes the presence of a new rival in the Central and Eastern market. For Bucharest, prime rent values were maintained for 5 consecutive years at about EUR 18.5/m2/month, below the values registered for the main Western European cities and for other cities in the proximity, such as Athens, Istanbul or Budapest. Consequently, there are development opportunities for Bucharest, both in terms of land or buildings availability and in terms of workforce. Having regard to the diminishing vacancy rates and the rental rates, developers initiate new projects, occupants extend, and investors pursue new opportunities in the Capital (or in the main regional centers, as main providers of specialist workforce). Thus, as the market is dominated by niche sectors 264 registering the highest growth rates, such as IT or SSC, there is an obvious need to adapt the spaces for rent, to accommodate new types of employees, with new habits. The strongest raise in demand will come from knowledge-based sectors, including professional services, science and high-tech. The office building market is among the most attractive markets for investments, and the attractiveness drivers are related to connectivity, mobility, accessibility in crucial fields like transport, IT&C or workforce attraction. Bucharest still has the chance to smart growth and development, supported by the economic strength and by qualified workforce which specialize in areas of excellence. Ongoing or future projects, especially infrastructure development projects, will be able to open new investment opportunities, in underdeveloped areas, and better connect the urban core to the extended metropolitan area. Thus, local authorities have the opportunity to go the extra mile, by implementing projects which encompass last generation technical components (smart components), and to cover the existing gaps by implementing an integrating approach. The rising construction costs, especially as a result of a lack of qualified workforce and of increasing prices for construction materials, corroborated with the increasing land prices (whether brown- or greenfield) can lead to increased rent values, in the long run. Retail buildings market. The demand for prime retail buildings is still growing. Rent values in the top shopping centers have witnessed a stabilization trend along the year, with a significant gap between their prices and those of street retail units. Shopping centers are social interaction places, where people not just do their shopping, but also spend their spare time, eat or engage in leisure activities. Street retail units do not provide the same controlled environment throughout the year and, additionally, they are placed in fast degrading areas, due to a lack of investments and of maintenance and regeneration works, in areas lacking parking spots or in areas with less and less attractive urban landscapes. Moreover, the legal amendments which closed many of the retail units located in high seismic risk buildings for a short period of time, without being supported by an integrated urban regeneration policy, will lead to the disappearance or decline of the street retail units, especially those located in central areas - which can be landmarks in defining the city image. Although a strength for the economy, e-commerce is the other danger for the urban retail life. To cope with the competition, technologies like Big Data, Internet of Things and artificial intelligence should be incorporated in the target fields, and the urban landscape should be improved. Thus, integrated urban policies supported by active measures to improve public spaces or retail facilities in the heart of the city, such as Calea Victoriei or Magheru/Brătianu Blvd, should become zero priority for local authorities, as a first step to attract investors and visitors. Also, capitalization on the large urban agglomerations strengths, such as Bucharest and its extended area, provides the opportunity to develop complex functional areas, where the retail sector provides the necessary support to adjacent office or cultural facilities. This provides an opportunity to generate ongoing consumer and user traffic and, implicitly, to avoid the development of areas with no activities, in days off, for example. Such mixed-use models create unique locations on the city map and should be encouraged from incipient stages, both by authorities and by developers. Industrial / logistics spaces market. Bucharest is highly attractive for its locations with logistics or retail functions, due to their financial potency. The favorable location is supported by the presence of the largest international airport in Romania and by the investments in the metropolitan transport infrastructure, as well as by the growing production, retail and trading activities; all these are undeniable prerequisites supporting a positive forecast for this sector. The visible trend is still to locate dedicated facilities outside city boundaries, along the main road or railway transport routes, and near intermodal nodes. Land market. In 2017-2018, the areas with the highest transaction volumes (in transaction numbers and value) remain the West and the North areas with a focus on office buildings development. 2019 was dominated by the residential segment, which favored the East area, supported by the 265 development of the retail pole already defined (at the exit to A2 highway). New investments are envisaged in Tineretului – Timpuri Noi area or near the North Station. Areas at the periphery still have large land reserves which are not yet the object of significant investments (despite their potential, the least attractive areas remain the South and the South-West areas). The most important conclusions for the public sector can be grouped as follows: 1. Identification of housing demand: Bucharest still registers the highest number of searches at national level for 2019167 with more than 350,100 visualizations or potential buyers, exceeding by far the offer; 2. Identification of affordable and/or social housing: the problem of access to housing is still highly present in Bucharest, affecting the poor population, which live in most precarious conditions and spend most of their income on housing - rent, maintenance or utilities. Quite often, residential alternatives are an apartment in one of the residential ensembles built in 1960-1980 and a new apartment, built after 2000, located at the periphery, far away from the amenities and services which are necessary for a good standard of living. An analysis of housing affordability by real estate advertisement area, for a net average income of RON 4,050/person, considered for November 2019, for two types of acquisition: • With loan for an individual or for a family168 • The indicative maximum mortgage loan a single individual can access is about EUR 46,000; consequently, such individual becomes eligible to buy a 2-room apartment in one of the following neighborhoods: Rahova, Giurgiului, Ghencea, Bucureștii Noi, Drumul Taberei, Militari (at the periphery of the neighborhood), Berceni, Colentina, Titan or Pantelimon, with slight differences between values driven by the construction year or by the proximity to a subway station etc. • Things are much more relaxed when we consider a family loan (mortgage loan with co-borrower), where the indicative maximum mortgage loan a family can access is about EUR 77,500; consequently, such family becomes eligible to buy a 2-room apartment in one of the following neighborhoods: Rahova, Giurgiului, Ghencea, Giulești, Militari, Colentina, Pantelimon, Drumul Taberei, Berceni, Titan, Crângași, Bucureștii Noi, Dristor-Vitan Vechi, Pipera, 13 Septembrie- Panduri, Iancului-Mihai Bravu, Vitan Nou, Griviței-Gara de Nord, Băneasa, Tineretului-Timpuri Noi, Moșilor, Decebal-Calea Călărașilor, 1 Mai or even Unirii. Obviously, we analyze here average prices, the values vary depending on many other factors previously identified in the analysis; moreover, we may speak of an overcrowding rate, as defined by the European Union, as 45 m2 is not sufficient for a family; • Without an individual or family loan, the results indicate the following aspects: • The acquisition without a loan or the equivalent saving period for purchasing an apartment, with the average salary identified above, by a single individual means as follows: at least 52 salaries are necessary a 45 m2 apartment, and the most affordable neighborhoods (up to 60 salaries) are as follows: Rahova, Giurgiului, 167 According to data included in the ROMANIAN RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORT – Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 for 2019 developed by analizeimobiliare.ro, together with imobiliare.ro. In this case, the demand comes from potential buyers who expressed interest for a certain property on the imobiliare.ro portal, within a certain period of time, by registering an action (phone number visualisation, submission of e-mail requesting more details, add printing or saving). 168 A 30-year loan; effective interest rate (EIR) approximately 5.5%; indebtedness rate 30%; advance payment 30%; and average price by real estate advertisement area for a 45 m2 apartment (S1 – 2019). 266 Ghencea, Bucureștii Noi, Drumul Taberei, Militari, Berce ni, Pantelimon, 13 Septembrie-Panduri, Colentina, Titan or Giulești; • Like in the previous example, if we speak of a family, the acquisition without a loan or the equivalent saving period for purchasing an apartment, with the average salary identified above means as follows: at least 31 salaries are necessary a 45 m2 apartment, and the most affordable neighborhoods (up to 36 salaries) are as follows: Rahova, Giurgiului, Ghencea, Bucureștii Noi, Drumul Taberei, Militari, Berceni, Pantelimon, 13 Septembrie-Panduri, Giulești, Colentina or Titan. Thus, it becomes clear that certain areas, which are currently less attractive, as indicated by the neighborhood attractiveness analysis, are most affordable for medium- to low income population. 3. Identification of possible locations where new residential developments should be encouraged: after1990, the development of the city has happened independently from rigorous resource planning and from the vision of local authorities, whose intervention in the process was limited to the issuance of approvals or permits, and such negative aspects were aggravated by the lack of solid and updated regulatory and urban planning documents. In many of the areas developed after 2000, dwellings do not comply either with the standards and regulations in force (minimum floor area, favorable orientation, adequate distance between apartment blocks, sufficient parking spots etc.) or with the sustainable urbanism principles, as they have no community centers, no green spaces or public spaces, and this diminishes the potential to increase the quality of life in Bucharest. In the long-term, such new areas can become much less attractive due to the lower level of comfort they offer, compared to the large residential ensembles, for example. As Bucharest becomes more and more attractive for investors, because investments have much better prime yields compared to other European cities, the development of the city can no longer happen without the strategic intervention and involvement of the local authorities, from the incipient concept stages. Such solutions could be applied in other areas which are less explored at urban level, but have equally promising potential - those located in the Southern area, for example: Antiaeriană - the development of a compact area, quoted from the World Bank Report on the identification of the main urban interventions to boost the attractiveness of the Antiaeriană area, where the residential component is considered a starting point and will provide the foundation, ensuring the necessary critical mass for such development; with an office building area proposed, together with the public administration buildings which will be developed in the area, it will very likely create a new core area in Bucharest, the first individual area in Sector 5 with high density of modern office buildings, and with the potential to re-direct tenants from the overcrowded areas din the North and Centre-West sub-markets, doubled by retail functions, or along the Filaret-Progresul corridor - urban regeneration of a linear area (from the World Bank Report: Practical urban solutions for Ferentari neighborhood which provides solutions for better opportunities for Ferentari residents - building new urban boulevards/main streets along viable segments. To activate urban boulevards by planning adequate land use (e.g., retail, housing, mixed use), with a special focus on the use of apartment blocks ground floor area. To organize initiatives/efforts to create flagship locations to generate a sense of belonging and vitality. To develop new parks, by partial or full reconversion of existing vacant lands and modernization of existing open spaces. Potential locations: the former industrial site Rocar (allows for the development of a mid-size park and/or Baduc logistics area - allows for the development of a small park). These are just some of the options available for Bucharest; 267 4. To increase capacity and develop the utility/infrastructure network: this correlates with the previous point, where the urban development planning, by limiting the uncontrolled urban sprawl, by using abandoned spaces and by renewing such spaces and providing them new functions, there are just some of the instruments that public authorities could implement. In Bucharest there still are large and medium-sized plots of land, some even located in the central area (like Esplanada or Casa Radio etc.) which could support new strategic development, although they are (fully or partly) private property (by activating public-private partnerships). The densification process requires the rational use of existing land already connected to utilities, although the higher prices of land in the built-up area of the city compared to the peri-urban areas can become a weakness. A preventive approach could also be implemented in the case of built-up areas expansion; both the development of the utility network and the identification of land reserves necessary to enlarge the existing road/pedestrian infrastructure or the introduction of new public transport routes are necessary steps before the initiation of the actual investment. Thus, in areas of peak real estate activity, such as Titan/Theodor Pallady or Militari/Iuliu Maniu, as well as in areas with potential, such as Antiaeriană, Ghencea, Progresul/Giurgiului it is crucial to identify the main options or development scenarios and to implement technical solutions to develop the utility network, to support their further economic growth and to contribute to increasing the quality of life in those areas. Another issue to explore is the heating system, which goes beyond the efficient and rational use of resources, because it is under more pressure generated by the new residential developments. In almost all residential developments built after 2000, heating is provided by individual apartment heating systems, and less by the central heating systems of the apartment blocks, and this generated increased power and gas consumption; 5. To develop new amenities and public services in newly built areas: for Bucharest, another issue to investigate is the quality of amenities in the new ensembles developed in the urban sprawl areas. Although these new areas are largely occupied by residents, they have poor amenities (whether we speak of education, healthcare or leisure amenities), and most of them rely on the amenities in other neighborhoods. This generated overcrowded pre-existing amenities and the development of areas without fast access (10-minute walk) to essential amenities. Consequently, we can already anticipate certain areas where the functionality should be re-designed, such as Militari/Drumul Belșugului, Berceni/Metalurgiei Boulevard, Rahova /Pucheni Street, especially since the population moving there is young. It is necessary to identify the residents’ needs, especially in dense areas; future development should conduct forecasts on the amenities and services needs and should reserve land for building such amenities. 6. To determine possible effects of new developments on the traffic: the development of peripheral areas (Titan - Anghel Saligny, Prelungirea Ghencea, Iuliu Maniu, Bucureștii Noi – Chitila, Berceni – Metalurgiei Blvd or Sălajului Road are just a few examples) was unplanned, without regard for a hierarchical street network and relying on undersized, lower class streets. This compromised the sustainable development of the street network and the provision of quality public transport for the new developments. Moreover, real estate development continued beyond the administrative boundaries, to the peri-urban area, and this burdens the traffic along the four cardinal directions, in the access/exit points; 7. To justify the increase of the taxable base: the differences noted in the real estate advertisement areas indicated the existence of premium areas, such as Kiseleff, Herăstrău or Dorobanți, where the population living or working there earns high and above average income. Thus, the buildings and land should be taxed according to their market value. Moreover, the quality of a neighborhood influences the level of property tax which could be collected. If property tax becomes an important source of revenues for the local budgets, the 268 local officials will have to invest more in the development of a set of rules and regulations on healthy urban development and proper building maintenance, to maintain and even extend a strong taxable base. 169 Another source of revenues, and a useful tool to fight uncontrolled urban sprawl is the overtaxation of abandoned land plots; 8. To develop a database on the housing stock, prices, rent: the housing resource management is an indispensable tool for any local administration; therefore, the need to create an updated database is of outmost importance, and is also correlated with the land registration issues; Local administration should know what are the resources they can rely on, especially in the relation with potential investors. In urban areas, the management of built-up property (existing or new buildings) is one of the main challenges; 9. Land resource management: the land resource management, in correlation with land registration and real estate issues, plays a crucial role in the robust development of the city, with short-, medium- or long-term objectives; therefore, the identification of a land portfolio (public and private property) with a strategic role in urban development should become zero priority. To identify well-placed land plots which should be regulated, so as to introduce public urban functions. He example of the North-South diagonal / the enlargement of the Berzei – Buzești boulevard, approximately 3 km (large scale urban intervention after 1990) proved both burdensome in terms of compliance with procedures, and costly, due to expropriations (the procedure took longer than forecasted: the building permit was issued in 2009, and the commissioning happened in 2013; the total expropriation costs reached RON 168.7170/approximately EUR 38.2); 10. To develop a portfolio of projects and investments in amenities and in infrastructure so as to attract tourists and other visitors: zero priority investment portfolio in the central area, as the most representative for the city identity; Its economic and urban regeneration and renewal should become a distinct objective for Bucharest, in direct competition with other capital cities like Budapest, Vienna or Prague, famous for their attractiveness. Another important step is to design a set of targeted interventions to enhance the attractiveness of areas with development potential which currently are impacted by the lack of public transport infrastructure (for example, Rahova or Progresului/Giurgiului neighborhoods, which do not benefit from a subway route, and this has a negative impact on traffic, on accessibility and mobility, given the entry/exit points to Giurgiu or Alexandria). 169 See Ionescu-Heroiu et al. (2013): 42. 170More information available at: https://bit.ly/2WG9sNx (December 2020). 269 8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE STRATEGY Building on the conclusions above,171 we can provide the following recommendations for the design of the Integrated Urban Development Strategy for Bucharest City (IUDS B). In order to facilitate reading, we grouped the recommendations by themes. Thus: • Table 16 summarizes the recommendations on housing in Bucharest; • Table 17 summarizes the recommendations on public spaces in Bucharest; • Table 18 summarizes the recommendations on the real estate market in Bucharest; Additionally, we have structured our recommendations so as to avoid any redundancy or repetition, and simplify the operations they involve. 8.1 Recommendations on housing Table 16 summarizes the recommendations on housing in Bucharest. Table 16. Recommendations for the Integrated Urban Development Strategy for Bucharest City (IUDS B), the housing theme. Conclusions of the study Recommendations 1. While the floor area and the room structure of 1. Structure the information on the number of rooms in a dwellings in the collective housing ensembles dwelling by neighborhood and develop a summary are almost homogeneous, the note the sheet for each neighborhood.172Based on the need for details, such a record could be supplemented with frequency of 1-room and 2-room apartments information included in the as-built documentation173 compared to other categories. Together with available with the owners’ associations, or in the neighborhood amenities, they contribute technical documentations drafted to obtain building mostly to the dynamics of residential mobility permits, available in one copy in the archive of the in Bucharest. Municipality of Bucharest, as issuer of the building permit;174 2. Correlate the information on residential buildings with the information on their residents, either by using the census data, or sociological surveys using representative samples, identified in the ensembles which build-up those neighborhoods. Ideally, at the end of the survey, each ensemble should have a demographic, social and economic profile which, together, should provide the neighborhood profile; 3. Depending on the profile of the neighborhood and, implicitly, of the residential ensembles, the Municipality of Bucharest should organize a combined architecture and urban planning competition which should explicitly target the following themes: • Use the apartment block roof tops for joint outdoor activities, depending on the demographic and social structure of the existing ensembles in a given neighborhood; 171 See Section Error! Reference source not found.. 172 Initially, the template of the summary statistical records in Section Error! Reference source not found. could be useful. 173 See HG 343/2017, consolidated version of 09.04.2021, Regulation, Article 46 and L 10/1995, consolidated version of 09.04.2021, Article 17. Although unlikely, the archives of the former Housing Management Enterprise (IAL) might still exist. If it does, then it might be possible to recover, at least partly, the as-built documentation for the residential buildings from the socialist period. 174 See MO 1867/2010, consolidated version of 09.04.2021, Article 20 § 1 c. 270 Conclusions of the study Recommendations • Facilitate vertical mobility for people with motor impairments, so as to encourage them to have an active life throughout the day, regardless the season; • Supplement and improve the bicycle and the running lanes so as to create coherent networks and loops, designed according to users’ needs and level of training; • Provide options to diversify activities which involve outdoor exercising in the residential ensembles and neighborhoods; • Turn the proposals into modular, efficient, interesting and sustainable solutions. 4. Draft a catalogue of solutions proposed during the competition and to test such solutions in several pilot areas; 5. Make available this catalogue for the owners’ associations, to consult before the initiation of capital repair works, necessary when the building reaches the end of its life cycle; 6. Design and test financial and non-financial incentives to encourage the adoptions of such solutions proposed in the catalogue. 2. The amenities for the residential ensembles 1. Identify the buildings owned by the public authorities were built based on the design principles of the and capitalize on such buildings to improve public ‘70s. However, their operational logic is amenities, especially for nurseries, kindergartens, schools or social centers. This measure is especially currently affected by the large shopping centers important for residential ensembles with high and by their shop networks. Therefore, in the population density; future they may be allocated more community 2. Identify and map neighborhood amenities at the level functions, to turn them into viable of residential ensembles; neighborhood centers. 3. Identify abandoned facilities, buildings or parts of buildings; 4. Identify the owners of spaces of facilities or buildings which host neighborhood amenities; 5. Test temporary pilot projects, to determine the type of functions a contemporary viable neighborhood center should host; 6. Design and test aggressive promotion campaigns for the pilot projects described above, so as to forecast their impact in various neighborhoods; 7. Design property transfer mechanisms for facilities with unidentified owners. 3. The typological diversity is the main feature of 1. Identify archives which still have relevant projects for the residential building stock in Bucharest, the ensembles built during the socialist period, whether we speak of age, building systems, or especially standard projects, but also unique projects; housing pattern.175 2. Digitize the relevant documentation on the housing stock in Bucharest, especially the drawings, to 175 Currently, there is not enough data on vacant dwellings, rented dwellings, insalubrious dwellings or informal settlements, which hampers the development of dedicated efficient policies. 271 Conclusions of the study Recommendations complete the information available in the specialist literature; 3. Gradually publish the available archives and specialist literature in an open digital platform, dedicated both to professionals and to the general public; 4. Design and validate a minimum set of indicators relevant for typological analyses, for phasing capital repair works and for modelling the earthquake behavior of the various ensembles; 5. Launch calls for project proposals to optimize the platform and it webpage and integrate it with other existing platforms; These could be organized as a hackathon; 6. Model the earthquake behavior of the Bucharest neighborhoods; 7. Draft a priority list for those ensembles which require capital repair works (see Point 1 of Table 16). 4. The dynamics of legal and regulatory provisions 1. Perform a critical analysis of the codification for the on the design of residential buildings is usually Land Planning, Urbanism and Constructions Code in synchronous with the economic and aesthetic parallel to that of the Cultural Heritage Code; evolution of the various periods. 2. Perform a legal analysis of the urbanism documentations which are important for the Unfortunately, the dynamics of urban planning development of Bucharest City and the classifications provisions is anachronic. of the resulting urbanism categories; 3. Perform a critical analysis of the available instruments for urban development planning and implementation, from the perspective of the typological classification described above; 4. Develop a minimum list of pilot urban design instruments with their legal and financial substantiation, which should be included in the Land Planning, Urbanism and Constructions Code and in the Cultural Heritage Code. 5. There is still no coherent urban policy on 1. Map the available land reserves in each neighborhood, housing in Bucharest. including both the identification of blocked land owners and of land plots with unidentified owners; 2. Design overtaxation mechanisms for blocked land, and property transfer mechanisms for and plots with unidentified owners, so that the Municipality of Bucharest can gradually replenish the property stock; 3. Identify and define the social and economic profile of areas with ageing population living in old residential buildings (see Figure 63). These should be priority intervention areas, and testing areas for the housing policies; 4. Perform a critical analysis and transfer of foreign viable models of housing policies, and their harmonization with the Romanian legal framework; 5. To design pilot housing policies, dedicated in a first phase to those areas identified at Point 3. Taking into account the German experience in designing policies for the residential ensembles built after the Second 272 Conclusions of the study Recommendations World War, we propose the usage cycle management as a starting point for policy design.176 6. Housing in Bucharest gradually becomes a 1. Complete a planning mechanism for the metropolitan problem of the entire metropolitan area. area of Bucharest, which should explicitly address the following:177 • Define the strategic intervention areas, through a Intercounty Zonal Spatial Plan (ZSP-IC) or a Regional Zonal Spatial Plan (ZSP-R); • Propose connectivity solutions for the connectivity problems, for the development of the critical infrastructure at regional and sub- regional levels, to establish the framework for the urban regeneration Programs and to enhance the ecosystem services portfolio; • Draft the preliminary requirements for the Terms of Reference for updating the General Urban Plans (PUGs) of the Administrative- Territorial Units affected; • Draft the preliminary requirements for the design of urban development policies in the Bucharest metropolitan area; • Systematize major projects which impact Bucharest metropolitan area; 2. The Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration (MLDPA) should initiate and finance the Intercounty Zonal Spatial Plan (ZSP-IC) or the Regional Zonal Spatial Plan (ZSP-R);178After the approval of the Plan, its provisions become mandatory for updating the General Urban Plans of the Administrative-Territorial Units affected; 3. The Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration (MLDPA) should finance and harmonize the General Urban Plans (PUGs) of the Administrative- Territorial Units affected; 4. Implement the Action Plans of the harmonized General Urban Plans and build metropolitan housing policies. Source: The authors. 176 See Section Error! Reference source not found.. 177 We proposed a similar mechanism for the Lase Valley Initiative ( see Aprahamian, 2018: 86ff.). 178 See Law 350/2001, updated version until 09.04.2021, Article 51, § 1.1. 273 8.2 Recommendations on public spaces Table 17 presents the recommendations on public spaces in Bucharest. Table 17. Recommendations for the Integrated Urban Development Strategy for Bucharest City (IUDS B), the public spaces theme. Conclusions of the study Recommendations 1. Public space design and planning 1.1 Most rehabilitation interventions on small-sized 1. Organize a competition, in partnership with the spaces were performed using improper Romanian Order of Architects (ROA) for the materials, without a unitary concept and development of a catalogue of technical solutions and of execution details for public space interventions. The without attention to details. Such an approach catalogue should provide solutions for interventions will prove inefficient with time, because such for the entire city, by types of public spaces; spaces will require higher maintenance costs. 2. Develop and publish the catalogue of technical solutions and of execution details, both in paper and digital formats; 3. Develop and publish good practice handbooks for the interventions in the public spaces of Bucharest, using the existing national and international examples; 4. Have the catalogue and good practice handbooks approved by Decision of the General Council of the Municipality of Bucharest; 5. Summarize and turn the good practice handbooks into Intervention Guides approved by the Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration (MLPDA); 6. Update the catalogue of technical solutions and of execution details, based on intervention results and on progress occurred in the execution technologies. 1.2 Many of the small-sized spaces only benefit 1. Map and make a detailed evaluation of public spaces from minimal urban furniture and limited public which cover less than 3 hectares (point-like spaces); lighting, and are not attractive for the residents 2. Organize a sociological survey in several pilot in the area. communities, to identify the main activities carried out in the spaces mapped according to the previous point; A relatively high share of the small-sized spaces The results of such sociological surveys should be were transformed into playgrounds. Although further summarized in a typological analysis on the apparently beneficial, this has not been a needs of their users and on the activities carried out by noticeable contribution to shaping the identity of such users, depending on the type of space; neighborhoods in Bucharest since playgrounds 3. Develop and disseminate urban furniture catalogues; are usually designed for a single age category; Such catalogues should encourage ergonomic Moreover, they did not foster intergenerational solutions, which should cater for a wide range of users; interactions. 4. Define a minimum package for point-like spaces, starting from the solutions catalogue and from the good practice handbooks described above, as well as from the outcomes of the sociological survey. The minimum package should enable the safe and pleasant use of that space. This can be negotiated with the residents in the area, so as to include specific solutions, adapted to that context. 1.3 A large share of the point-like spaces can be 1. For some of the characteristic types of point-like renewed by architectural and urban planning spaces mapped according to the recommendations competitions or by urban acupuncture above, the sector municipalities can organize 274 Conclusions of the study Recommendations interventions promoted by the public competitions organized by the Romanian Order of administration. Architects (ROA); 2. Alternatively, the sector municipality can publish the spaces selected on a dedicated platform for participative budget allocation, following the model used in Brașov and Cluj. In principle, a broader involvement in the allocation of funds for interventions in point-like spaces should lead to a stronger empowerment of the communities using such spaces. 1.4 Uncoordinated outdoor advertising using 1. Develop a comprehensive database of the Municipality building facades has a negative impact on the with the updated situation of outdoor advertising overall image of the public space. Although the elements; “Regulation on the delegation of the public 2. Develop an aesthetical guide for outdoor service of public and private property advertisement and for other types of commercial presentations for the historical center of the city; management of street and outdoor advertising in Bucharest City” was approved by HGCMB 3. Set up a dedicated department of the Municipality which should advise companies on shape, size and 99/2018, the results are yet to be seen. aesthetics of advertisement elements. 1.5 Without a coherent art promotion Program for 1. Develop a structure for the public funding of urban art the public space in Bucharest, art interventions (similar to the European model “percentage for art”) are most often a conjectural presence in the and to allow for the occasional use of urban space to display contemporary art works; public spaces, without bringing a significant contribution to enhancing their quality and 2. Organize national and international competitions for artists, for well justified locations in the historical identity. center and in the neighborhoods, which should contribute to a better urban landscape. 2. Secondary public space network 2.1 The point-like public spaces, usually represented 1. Analyze the minor streets network in neighborhoods by squares or playgrounds for children, are with a major deficit of outdoor leisure facilities; placed mainly in the center area or within 2. Analyze the minor streets network and its use; identify collective housing facilities. options to design a coherent bicycle lane network, which should provide safe connection with the nearest However, the need for small-sized public spaces outdoor leisure facilities; is felt especially in the areas with individual 3. Design a bicycle lane network and establish its dwellings (Andronache, Industriilor, Cotroceni development priorities in coherent loops; etc.); 4. Test a rental instrument for secondary street spaces, which are currently used as parking spots, either for retail or for personal purposes; 5. Design and test an instrument for the differentiated use of secondary streets: for example, for vehicle traffic during the week and for pedestrian traffic during weekends; 6. Design and test a budgetary instrument solely for works of art, for the purpose of raising awareness on public space issues. 2.2 The lack of interventions in public space is most 1. Identify abandoned facilities, buildings or parts of visible at the periphery, where most of the new buildings; real estate projects are located. These areas 2. Identify the owners of spaces or buildings; usually lack housing amenities as well. 3. Test temporary pilot projects, and determine the type of functions the new public spaces should host; 275 Conclusions of the study Recommendations Therefore, the abandoned spaces are a crucial 4. Design and test aggressive promotion campaigns for land resource which, with minimum the pilot projects described above, so as to forecast rehabilitation investments, could compensate their impact in various neighborhoods; some of the missing leisure areas in the new 5. Design property transfer mechanisms for facilities with neighborhoods; unidentified owners. 3. Main public space network 3.1 In the past years, the excessive and aggressive After testing and validating steps 4-6 under Point 1 in the parking and the other street uses gradually pilot areas, they can be included into a set of regulations reduced the carriage way. on the use of secondary streets in Bucharest, which Chaotic and excessive parking became a method should gradually turn into a design and management to observe and measure accurately how much of instrument. the street space should be used for vehicle 1. Analyze the minor street network, to identify places traffic and how much should remain a vague with potential for multiple use of secondary streets; space, which can be used flexibly, for pedestrian 2. Map and regulate the entire space of secondary or other purposes. streets which have proven multiple use potential. The purpose of this action is to create a plot between the minimum area reserved for pedestrian traffic (1 m from the alignment) and the minimum vehicle traffic area. This plot will be monitored and managed in real time and its main function will be parking, but the “lots” can be rented for other purposes as well. The plot will be connected to an electronic management system and will enable the following types of actions: • Dynamic adjustment of parking prices; • Dynamic adjustment of the vehicle/pedestrian ratio; • Fostering the local trade and businesses which depend on a good relationship with the street space; 3. Gradual decrease the number of parking spots in the central area and, implicitly, deterrence of traffic in the central area of Bucharest, in parallel with incentives for the use of public transport. One of the efficient mechanisms to support this transition involves the gradual and differentiated increase in the parking price for parking lots located on secondary streets. The street parking price and subscriptions should be carefully correlated with the legislation on new real estate developments, as the conditions on minimum parking spots are a well-known and tested instrument to encourage or dissuade constructions, especially residential constructions. 3.2 The Bucharest green space network is still 1. Map the abandoned spaces which could provide viable incomplete. However, there is a relatively high connections in the current green space network, number of abandoned public spaces, mainly regardless their ownership regime; along the West-East direction and in the central 2. Perform a typological classification of such spaces area which could be turned into viable according to the activities they can host and to the improvements they can bring to the current ecosystem connections of the current green space network. services portfolio of Bucharest; 276 Conclusions of the study Recommendations 3. Identify the owners of such spaces; 4. Design property transfer mechanisms for spaces with unidentified owners. 5. Test temporary pilot projects, to determine the type of functions the new public spaces should host; 6. Design and test an aggressive promotion campaign for the pilot projects described above, so as to forecast their impact in various neighborhoods; 7. Monitor the use of the new spaces and to evaluate their impact on the use of the green space network. 3.3 There is no unitary approach on the 1. Evaluate the urban planning documentation and the watercourses crossing Bucharest, especially on strategic documents developed in time for the green- the chain of lakes and Dâmbovița. Except for blue areas around Colentina and Dâmbovița; Sector 2, where green spaces of various sizes 2. Check the actual and the legal situation in the field; have been created here in the past 10 years, 3. Organize, in partnership with the Ilfov County Council, water banks are still lacking amenities and with the municipalities of the towns crossed by Colentina and Dâmbovița, and with the Romanian difficult to access for the public. Order of Architects (ROA) and international competition for planning solutions for the Colentina and Dâmbovița banks; The intervention area should include at least the segments covered by the two rivers and the adjacent areas which are included in the administrative territory of Ilfov County; 4. Evaluate minimum and maximum intervention options for the design and development of leisure facilities nearby the two rivers; 5. Establish expropriation corridors for the minimum necessary interventions; 6. Schedule the expropriations; 7. Update the urban planning documentations which regulate the areas in the proximity of the two rivers and to design compensation mechanisms for the affected owners; 8. Implement the projects, by modules and stages. Source: The authors. 277 8.3 Recommendations on the real estate market Table 18 presents the recommendations on the real estate market in Bucharest; Table 18. Recommendations for the Integrated Urban Development Strategy for Bucharest City (IUDS B), the real estate theme. Conclusions of the study Recommendations 1. Uneven and imbalanced development of the 1. Encourage the development of new office building sub-markets analyzed, with varying pace and areas and of economic activities outside the Centre intensity of investments, whether public or and North areas, mainly in the South-West part of the private; overcrowding of the North area and city; currently, the Antiaeriană area (Sector 5) has a economic stagnation of the South area, by unique potential at regional level and could somewhat aggravated poverty areas, in Sector 5, for balance the polarized North-South development of the example, with urban planning often left for Capital; private developers. 2. Identify possible locations, mainly in the South Urban morphology is affected by the numerous (Rahova or Berceni neighborhoods, with large plots of “additions” which changed the typology of land available), East or West, where new residential certain areas dominated by individual dwellings developments should be encouraged, by strategic or by the design of new ensembles in partnerships with private investors who proved to be empty/undeveloped areas, with precarious the main actors in the development of attractiveness amenities. areas, whether office buildings, retail or residential areas; 3. Increase the capacity and develop the utility/infrastructure network - urban development planning, by limiting the uncontrolled urban sprawl, by using abandoned spaces and by renewing such spaces and providing them new functions; 4. Limit the uncontrolled urban sprawl and strike a balance between expansion, affordability and provision of utilities, by market regulation instruments such as the tax incentives and by encouraging the preferential development of certain areas in the city (e.g., Antiaeriană, Ghencea, and Progresul/Giurgiului). 2. The change in the behavioral patterns of 1. Develop a portfolio of projects/investment in facilities buyers, companies, employees or tourists will and infrastructure so as to attract tourists and other reflect on the real estate market demand (with visitors, mainly in the central area (Magheru/Calea implications for all its components: residential, Victoriei); economic and urban regeneration and office, retail, logistics/industrial). The demand is renewal of the central area, correlated with measures no longer just for residential, office or retail to extend pedestrian only areas or shared-space areas; facilities, but for attractive areas, where 2. Capitalize on the buildings from the central-historical affordability, urban landscape, public spaces / area of the city for profit-generating purposes (retail, green spaces, amenities are very important office facilities), following the example of most factors. European capitals, by improving the urban landscape, The supply will also be influenced by the rehabilitation/restoration of heritage buildings increasing construction costs, due to the rising (initially buildings with seismic risk which are part of salaries in the field, rising costs for construction the city identity); materials and energy, to the workforce scarcity, 3. Increase the attractiveness of existing residential to the stronger environmental and energy neighborhoods, by rehabilitating the existing residential stock, with zero priority for buildings which 278 Conclusions of the study Recommendations efficiency requirements, which will all exceeded their life cycle (more than 50 years old – contribute to increased selling prices. Titan, Berceni or Militari neighborhoods). Introduce innovative systems and new technologies to reduce consumption and improve their overall efficiency; 4. Strengthen public-private partnerships whereby the local administration can use tax incentives for investors so as to contribute to the development of areas which are of economic or social interest, by creating attractive areas in terms of construction quality, urban landscape and by preserving the public interest (especially in the new real estate development areas like Pipera, Theodor Pallady or Militari). 3. The real estate market extends beyond the city 1. We note the need for an integrated approach on the boundaries, and influences both the development of the metropolitan area, which in the development and the development limitations first phase involves a critical look at the peri-urban in the city and in the metropolitan area. The area of Bucharest, consisting in the first layer of first layer of localities around the city is the localities around the city and especially in the North most impacted by the development of the real and South parts, which are highly active economically, estate sector. with strong entrepreneurial capacity and an economic profile which fits the Capital profile. The real estate developments along the city boundaries (both inner and outer developments) require a set of joint integrated measures for the basic administrative- territorial units (BATUs) affected, to enable sustainable growth in the future (for example. areas like Prelungirea Ghencea, Militari or Berceni – Popești Leordeni); 2. Identify the need to develop multimodal points - correlated with the new developments and extensions in the metropolitan areas; to correlate mobility flows home-workplace, to enable the development of sustainable green mobility. Moreover, it is necessary to plan future developments around these modal points, and the experience has shown that investments in infrastructure attract real estate investments; 3. Develop a metropolitan database dedicated to the real estate market which could be made available for investors, and for buyers/tenants or other categories of interested users. The database can include information on the housing stock, prices, rent, available land, vacant housing, rented housing, unhealthy housing or informal settlements, thus contributing to a faster process of development of dedicated and efficient urban development/housing policies. 279 Conclusions of the study Recommendations 4. Property valuation and the current private 1. Reform the current building taxation system, property taxation system rely on the location of especially in premium areas, to perform property the building, not on its market value, which valuation and to differentiate property according to limits the local budget revenues. market value (in Primăverii, Kiseleff or Aviatorilor neighborhoods, for example); 2. Grant tax exemptions or incentives for developers who contribute to the development of quality public spaces, green spaces etc., which are used by communities, in the new development areas; 3. Grant tax exemptions or incentives for owners’ associations or for owners who contribute to improving the urban landscape in their neighborhood or in their area by creating urban laboratories where the key urban stakeholders and the final users can organize, maintain and use the public or semi-public spaces in the proximity; 4. Punitive measures for owners who fail to maintain their property and thus damage the urban landscape of a neighborhood / contribute to the decline of its attractiveness; 5. Overtaxation of abandoned land plots and of brownfields by the Municipality, so as to stimulate their inclusion in the real estate flow (sale, development etc.). 5. As of yet, there is no policy dedicated to 1. Identify the demand for affordable/social housing - housing in Bucharest, and this affects the access and create a social housing stock - which should to housing of young population, with most support underprivileged categories in the process of affected category being the young population home buying or renting, using specific mechanisms. with income below average. Implement measures to support the concept of affordable housing, focused on vulnerable categories (to introduce subsidized rent or rent control, for example); 2. Facilitate access to funding for underprivileged categories - reconsider the “First House” governmental Program so as to actually support the more exposed social categories and to ensure their access to quality housing, in areas with access to urban amenities, services, infrastructure and facilities. 6. Lack of local authority control (PMB or the 1. Update in real time the database proposed for the sector municipalities) on the new developments ensembles built during the socialist period by adding - real estate development is much faster, and the newly-proposed projects, so that: the local authorities can’t keep pace. • There is a correlation between the investments and the capacity of networks and amenities to support such investments (macro level); • The future development areas can be identified, and the local authorities are able to 280 Conclusions of the study Recommendations intervene from incipient stages in the negotiation of urban indicators which favor sustainable urban development (functional mix, quality green and public spaces); 2. Plan urban development, identify unused plots/spaces and renew them by the insertion of new mixed functions. For example, negotiate urban planning indicators for newly-built housing so as to reserve some for social housing, to foster social integration; 3. Adopt a densification and greening urban policy, so as to fight uncontrolled urban sprawl and use the land resources efficiently. Green roofs for new housing - tax incentives for developers who introduce new technologies; 4. Re-evaluate the newly built areas which lack utilities and amenities, so as to identify solutions to increase the quality of housing and to develop the necessary amenities, for example, to limit daily travel, in area like Militari, Ghencea or Berceni. Source: The authors. 281 ANNEX 1: DRUMUL TABEREI NEIGHBORHOOD, PLAN AND REALITY 282 ANNEX 2: STATISTICAL SHEETS - HOUSING IN BUCHAREST. In order to systematize the statistical information acquired so far, we dedicated this section to summary statistical sheets which focus on the following themes: 1 Distribution and characteristics179 of individual dwellings in the six sectors of Bucharest. 2 Distribution and characteristics180 of collective dwellings in the six sectors of Bucharest. 3 Housing stock characteristics 181 in Sector 1; 4 Housing stock characteristics in Sector 2; 5 Housing stock characteristics in Sector 3; 6 Housing stock characteristics in Sector 4; 7 Housing stock characteristics in Sector 5; 8 Housing stock characteristics in Sector 6; Summary statistical sheet of collective dwellings in Bucharest Figure 204. Distribution of individual dwellings, by building age, by sector, in 2011 Sector 6 Sector 5 Sector 4 Sector 3 Sector 2 Sector 1 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 28,000 32,000 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 perioadă necunoscută Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 179 The characteristics selected are as follows: building age, average floor area of the dwelling and average number of households in a dwelling. 180 In order to facilitate comparison between individual and collective housing, the characteristics selected for t he statistical sheet for collective housing are the same as those selected for individual housing. 181 The summary statistical sheet for each district of Bucharest includes the following indicators: housing stock typology and ag e, average number of rooms, and the average number of persons in a dwelling, both for individual and for collective dwellings. 283 Figure 205. Average useful floor area of an individual dwelling, by sector, by building age, in square meters, in 2011 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Figure 206. Average number of households in an individual dwelling, by sector, by building age, in 2011 1.20 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.77 0.70 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 284 Summary statistical sheet of collective dwellings in Bucharest Figure 207. Distribution of collective dwellings, by building age, in 2011 Sector 6 Sector 5 Sector 4 Sector 3 Sector 2 Sector 1 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 perioadă necunoscută Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Figure 208. Average useful floor area of a collective dwelling, by sector, by building age, in 2011 80.00 74.83 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 39.20 35.00 30.00 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 285 Figure 209. Average number of households in a collective dwelling, by sector, by building age, in 2011 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Summary statistical sheet of Sector 1 Figur2 210. Distribution of housing stock in Sector 1, by typology and age, in 2011 2002-2011 1990-2001 1978-1989 1971-1977 1961-1970 1946-1960 1919-1945 ante - 1919 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Clădiri individuale Clădiri cuplate Clădiri înșiruite Blocuri de locuințe Clădiri destinate spațiului colectiv de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 286 Figure 211. Average number of rooms and average number of persons in a dwelling, for individual dwellings in Sector 1, in 2011 4.50 4.35 4.36 4.00 3.72 3.57 3.50 3.68 3.26 3.22 3.52 3.12 3.41 2.97 3.00 3.18 2.81 2.50 2.63 2.53 2.41 2.00 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Număr mediu de persoane Număr mediu de camere de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011 Figure 212. Average number of rooms and average number of persons in a dwelling, for collective dwellings in Sector 1, in 2011 3.00 2.80 2.70 2.71 2.60 2.47 2.45 2.40 2.27 2.29 2.23 2.37 2.20 2.00 1.76 1.96 1.80 1.88 1.60 1.75 1.73 1.70 1.57 1.40 1.20 1.00 1.13 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Număr mediu de persoane Număr mediu de camere de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 287 Summary statistical sheet of Sector 2 Figure 213. Distribution of housing stock in Sector 2, by typology and age, in 2011 2002-2011 1990-2001 1978-1989 1971-1977 1961-1970 1946-1960 1919-1945 ante - 1919 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Clădiri individuale Clădiri cuplate Clădiri înșiruite Blocuri de locuințe Clădiri destinate spațiului colectiv de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Figure 214. Average number of rooms and average number of persons in a dwelling, for individual dwellings in Sector 2, in 2011 4.50 4.27 4.07 4.00 3.70 3.50 3.37 3.27 3.29 3.56 3.59 3.14 3.40 3.06 3.36 3.00 2.92 2.73 2.50 2.68 2.57 2.00 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Număr mediu de persoane Număr mediu de camere de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 288 Figure 215. Average number of rooms and average number of persons in a dwelling, for collective dwellings in Sector 2, in 2011 3.00 2.52 2.56 2.51 2.49 2.49 2.50 2.33 2.18 2.17 2.38 2.26 2.20 2.00 2.09 1.91 1.81 1.50 1.69 1.00 0.89 0.50 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Număr mediu de persoane Număr mediu de camere de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Summary statistical sheet of Sector 3 Figure 216. Distribution of housing stock in Sector 3, by typology and age, in 2011 2002-2011 1990-2001 1978-1989 1971-1977 1961-1970 1946-1960 1919-1945 ante - 1919 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Clădiri individuale Clădiri cuplate Clădiri înșiruite Blocuri de locuințe Clădiri destinate spațiului colectiv de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 289 Figure 217. Average number of rooms and average number of persons in a dwelling, for individual dwellings in Sector 3, in 2011 5.00 4.50 4.39 4.19 4.20 3.94 4.00 3.87 3.50 3.30 3.66 3.24 3.20 3.23 3.57 3.50 3.27 3.00 3.19 2.79 2.50 2.64 2.00 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Număr mediu de persoane Număr mediu de camere de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Figure 218. Average number of rooms and average number of persons in a dwelling, for collective dwellings in Sector 3, in 2011 2.60 2.40 2.39 2.40 2.28 2.29 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.14 2.24 2.26 2.05 2.17 2.00 2.04 1.94 1.91 1.80 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.41 1.20 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Număr mediu de persoane Număr mediu de camere de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 290 Summary statistical sheet of Sector 4 Figure 219. Distribution of housing stock in Sector 4, by typology and age, in 2011 2002-2011 1990-2001 1978-1989 1971-1977 1961-1970 1946-1960 1919-1945 ante - 1919 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Clădiri individuale Clădiri cuplate Clădiri înșiruite Blocuri de locuințe Clădiri destinate spațiului colectiv de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Figure 220. Average number of rooms and average number of persons in a dwelling, for individual dwellings in Sector 4, in 2011 4.50 4.28 4.10 4.00 3.50 3.32 3.28 3.46 3.09 3.12 3.35 3.01 2.99 3.30 3.00 3.13 2.71 2.68 2.50 2.51 2.41 2.00 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Număr mediu de persoane Număr mediu de camere de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 291 Figure 221. Average number of rooms and average number of persons in a dwelling, for collective dwellings in Sector 4, in 2011 Title 2.80 2.66 2.60 2.50 2.42 2.41 2.36 2.40 2.31 2.48 2.20 2.21 2.38 2.20 2.28 2.21 2.00 2.12 2.01 1.80 1.89 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.17 1.00 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Număr mediu de persoane Număr mediu de camere de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Summary statistical sheet of Sector 5 Figure 222. Distribution of housing stock in Sector 5, by typology and age, in 2011 2002-2011 1990-2001 1978-1989 1971-1977 1961-1970 1946-1960 1919-1945 ante - 1919 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Clădiri individuale Clădiri cuplate Clădiri înșiruite Blocuri de locuințe Clădiri destinate spațiului colectiv de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 292 Figure 223. Average number of rooms and average number of persons in a dwelling, for individual dwellings in Sector 5, in 2011 4.50 4.09 3.97 4.00 3.79 3.63 3.71 3.50 3.58 3.20 3.51 3.47 3.13 3.12 3.06 3.00 3.08 2.86 2.88 2.82 2.50 2.00 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Număr mediu de persoane Număr mediu de camere de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Figure 224. Average number of rooms and average number of persons in a dwelling, for collective dwellings in Sector 5, in 2011 2.80 2.55 2.56 2.60 2.48 2.37 2.54 2.40 2.33 2.22 2.38 2.22 2.20 2.14 2.18 2.00 2.10 2.01 1.93 1.80 1.90 1.60 1.40 1.38 1.20 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Număr mediu de persoane Număr mediu de camere de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 293 Summary statistical sheet of Sector 6 Figure 225. Distribution of housing stock in Sector 6, by typology and age, in 2011 2002-2011 1990-2001 1978-1989 1971-1977 1961-1970 1946-1960 1919-1945 ante - 1919 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Clădiri individuale Clădiri cuplate Clădiri înșiruite Blocuri de locuințe Clădiri destinate spațiului colectiv de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. Figure 226. Average number of rooms and average number of persons in a dwelling, for individual dwellings in Sector 6, in 2011 5.00 4.51 4.50 4.29 4.00 4.00 3.80 3.50 3.68 3.66 3.26 3.27 3.55 3.15 3.14 3.28 3.00 3.03 2.91 2.91 2.81 2.50 2.00 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Număr mediu de persoane Număr mediu de camere de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 294 Figure 227. Average number of rooms and average number of persons in a dwelling, for collective dwellings in Sector 6, in 2011 2.80 2.64 2.60 2.47 2.56 2.40 2.40 2.29 2.31 2.40 2.24 2.20 2.09 2.23 2.21 2.00 1.90 2.05 1.80 1.88 1.79 1.60 1.55 1.40 1.20 ante - 1919 1919-1945 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1977 1978-1989 1990-2001 2002-2011 Număr mediu de persoane Număr mediu de camere de locuit Source: Adapted after PHC 2011. 295 ANNEX 3: HOUSING ENSEMBLES AGE AND BUILDING SYSTEM After having corroborated the data on the age of housing ensembles or residential buildings with the information identified on their building systems, we managed to define a timeline which highlights the decisive stages in the development of the prefabrication process. Consequently, we identified seven periods, each having specific building characteristics: 1918-1939, 1940-1950, 1951-1958, 1959-1963, 1964-1970, 1971-1977 and 1978-1990. The study on the building system follows the logic of the prefabrication and industrialization processes in housing development. Starting from these considerations, there are several variations of the basic building systems, each of them with their characteristic elements. After the final definition and classification of all derivatives of the building systems, categories which display insignificant differences should be revised and, possibly, merged. 296 Table 19. The twelve building systems identified in the ensembles documented by references Building system Description Date Seismic design Comments 1. Building system 01 (SC01) • Load-bearing masonry made of bricks, with 1950-1958 Pre-code period (prior to Instructions and guides were proposed transverse or longitudinal walls 1940, and prior to 1963, during this period, but they cannot be • Low level of industrialization and prefabrication, respectively):182 considered Seismic Design Codes. applied to small construction elements. • I–41 (1941); • I–45 (1945). 2. Building system 02 (SC02) • Monolithic reinforced concrete structural frames 1950-1958 Pre-code period (before with thick floor slabs, diaphragms or monolithic 1958-1963 1940, and before 1963, skeleton and filling masonry; respectively): • Experimentation, especially in facades, with large • I–41 (1941); prefabricated reinforced concrete panels; • I–45 (1945). • Structural design errors: floor diaphragms turned into ground floor pillars, removal of ground floor pillars. 3. Building system 03 (SC03) • Monolithic reinforced concrete constructions cast 1950-1958 Pre-code period (before in plaster, using a plaster mold; 1940, and before 1963, • Solid concrete foundations; respectively): • Partition walls, both load-bearing and non-load- • I–41 (1941); bearing, are made of semi-compact concrete. • I–45 (1945). 4. Building system 04 (SC04) • Longitudinal load-bearing masonry, either 1958-1963 Pre-code period (before traditional type or made of large blocks of 1940, and before 1963, masonry, with reinforced concrete pits or pillars; respectively): • Precast floor elements: • I–41 (1941); • Hollow core slabs; • I–45 (1945). • Reinforced concrete precast elements; • Ceramic or prestressed concrete pieces, with portions of monolithic floors, where the installations pass; 182 More information on the methodology for establishing the periods of the Seismic Design Codes available at: https://bit.ly/35KlVSR (December 2020) . 297 Building system Description Date Seismic design Comments • Relatively good thermal behavior. 5. Building system 05 (SC05) • Load-bearing masonry of ceramic blocks, with 1958-1963 Pre-code period (before reinforced concrete columns and belts; 1963-1970 1940, and before 1963, • Reinforced concrete precast (or monolithic) respectively): floors; • I–41 (1941); • I–45 (1945). Low code period (1963- 1977) • P13–63 (1963); • P13–70 (1970). 6. Building system 6 (SC06) • Structures with skeleton (frames and beams) or 1963-1970 Low code period (1963- with reinforced concrete diaphragms, with 1977) intensive use of sliding mold technology; • P13–63 (1963); • Filling masonry made of ceramic blocks (rarely, • P13–70 (1970). for the time being, AAC183); • Reinforced concrete precast or monolithic floors; 7. Building system 07 (SC07) • Structural wall systems, consisting of large 1963-1970 Low code period (1963- precast reinforced concrete panels, the size of a 1977) room; • P13–63 (1963); • Precast floor; • P13–70 (1970). • AAC partitions; 8. Building system 08 (SC08) • Buildings built entirely of large precast reinforced 1963-1970 Low code period (1963- concrete panels, for 9-11 floors; 1970-1977 1977) • AAC non-structural walls; • P13–63 (1963); • Plans with two axes of symmetry are preferred • P13–70 (1970). due to constraints caused by the reduction of type and size of prefabricated elements. 183 Autoclaved Cellular Concrete / AAC 298 Building system Description Date Seismic design Comments 9. Building system 09 (SC09) • Mixed compositions, with honeycomb or cellular 1970-1977 Low code period (1963- structural walls, but also with skeleton systems 1977) consisting of beams and reinforced concrete • P13–63 (1963); frames; • P13–70 (1970). • They use precast elements: large panels for the facade, non-structural walls made of AAC strips, precast space cells etc.; • The use of sliding structures is being reduced. 10. Building system 10 (SC10) • Structures that enable freely partitioning spaces 1970-1977 Low code period (1963- on the ground floor: thick slab frames: rare 1977) diaphragms, closing walls and light facades; • P13–63 (1963); • The attempts to remove beams or to reduce • P13–70 (1970). diaphragms to obtain free space at the ground floor caused significant damage at the 1977 earthquake. 11. Building system 11 (SC11) • Structures entirely made of large precast 1977-1990 Moderate code period reinforced concrete panels; (1978-1990): • Light inner partition walls. • P100–78 (1978); • P100–81 (1981). 12. Building system 12 (SC12) • High degree of industrialization for structures that 1977-1990 Moderate code period are not fully precast: reinforced concrete columns (1978-1990): or frames, precast (slab), rare diaphragms in cell • P100–78 (1978); system; • P100–81 (1981). • Light closures for facades and partitions. Source: Adapted after various issues of the Arhitectura Journal. 299 Table 20. Summary description of residential ensembles documented from the reference list; Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation 1. Residential ensemble Drumul 1950–1958 The consolidation of the neighborhood began in 1954 and it — Taberei 1 includes about 1,500 apartments. Density - 420 inhabitants per hectare. The peripheral layout used to build the apartment blocks created inner yards in the neighborhood, which allow for the development of green spaces, provided with water fountains, solariums and playgrounds, sports grounds, relaxation areas, gazebos etc. The typical segment for these apartment blocks includes three apartments per floor, which is the best solution for the orientation issue. Thus, at least 70% of the rooms have good orientation, and each apartment has at least one room with good orientation. The 1,500 apartments are divided as follows: 10% 1-room apartments, 75% 2-room apartments, 15% 3-room apartments. There are also related amenities, such as retail units. The facade ornamentation took into account the fact that there were no works of special importance in the area, which could have imposed a certain architecture, and the fact that these works will become the core of a new neighborhood to be developed here. Consequently, there blocks impose the architecture of the new neighborhood. (Arhitectura Journal 1-2/1958) 2. Residential ensemble Drumul 1958-1963 The systematization plan for the Drumul Taberei neighborhood — Taberei 2 1963-1970 proposed 11,901 apartments, of which 10,035 class I apartments and 1,866 class II apartments. The main goals were: to avoid the 1970-1977 development of rigid facilities; massive building layouts towards the outer and inner arterial roads of the microdistricts; the removal of amenities from the housing facilities and their location 300 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation in the green space represented by the microdistrict park; grouping of parking lots, usually along the microdistrict boundaries; the removal of sports grounds (generated noise) from the microdistricts, to be grouped in a common sports base, far away from the housing facilities; to obtain a gross housing density of approximately 6,700 m2, floor area/ha; to build using advanced industrial methods etc. (Arhitectura Journal 1/70) 3. Residential ensemble Militari 1963-1970 A total number of 40,000 apartments developed in collective SC06: 1977-1990 buildings. A significant number of unique constructions were • Structures with skeleton erected, as well as standard or reusable projects, with a high (frames and beams) or with degree of industrialization. Standard buildings vary in height (P+4, reinforced concrete P+7, P+8, P+10), have numerous adaptations and differentiated diaphragms, with intensive particularities, up to 100 types of houses, designed to reduce the use of sliding mold technology; monotony of a bedroom neighborhood. The goal was also to include buildings with retail spaces at the ground floor, to design • Filling masonry made of ceramic blocks (rarely, for and build, in parallel with houses, numerous nurseries, the time being, AAC184); kindergartens, schools, high schools, gyms, clinics etc. In 1980- • Reinforced concrete 1985 the ensemble was finalized by adding cinema halls, parks, precast or monolithic food markets, canteen, social club and other amenities. floors; (Arhitectura Journal 1-2/1980) SC05: • Load-bearing masonry of ceramic blocks, with reinforced concrete columns and belts; • Reinforced concrete precast (or monolithic) floors; 184 Autoclaved Cellular Concrete / AAC 301 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation 4. Ensemble Giulești – Calea 1958–1963 The systematization of Giulești neighborhood includes an area of SC05: Giulești (Calea Giulești) approximately 110 ha, consisting in 4 microdistricts with • Load-bearing masonry of 1977–1990 approximately 800 apartments, which can accommodate about ceramic blocks, with (Crângași 36,000 inhabitants. The housing is adapted after the reusable reinforced concrete project P+4 floors which was assembled differently, with two, columns and belts; Neighborhood – South) three or four segments with a linear or shifting structure, with • Reinforced concrete ground floor shops, placed at the end of the block or in the mid- precast (or monolithic) section. The entire neighborhood includes: 943 3-room floors; apartments, 1,060 2-room apartments and 7 1-room apartments. (Arhitectura Journal 6/1961) 5. Residential ensemble on 1950–1958 The residential ensemble on the Bucureștii Noi Boulevard (Grivița SC04: Bucureștii Noi Boulevard Roșie neighborhood) meant the construction of 15 apartment • Longitudinal load-bearing blocks with basement, ground floor and 3 floors, approximately masonry, either traditional 450 1-room, 2-rom and 3-room apartments. The ensemble can type or made of large accommodate approximately 1,800 persons. The ornamentation blocks of masonry, with was intended to provide a frame for the cinema hall Twin reinforced concrete pits or pillars; Nations. Therefore, the apartment blocks facades used stylized classical architecture elements or elements inspired by the old • Precast floor elements: Romanian architecture. • Hollow core slabs; (Arhitectura Journal 10-11/1958) • Reinforced concrete precast elements; • Ceramic or prestressed concrete pieces, with portions of monolithic floors, where the installations pass; • Relatively good thermal behavior. 6. Ensemble in Jiului/Pajura 1963-1970 The development towards East was limited in line with the city SC01: neighborhood planning drawings, which include a main green area penetrating 302 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation from North to South, to include Casa Scânteii, the National • Load-bearing masonry Economy Exhibition Pavilion and Herăstrău Park. The ensemble made of bricks, with was created so that it includes a front of high apartment blocks, transverse or longitudinal walls placed at a comfortable pace, enabling a spatial connection between the inner and the outer sides of the neighborhood and • Low level of creating sneak-peek views towards the Exhibition Pavilion and industrialization and prefabrication, applied to Casa Scânteii. small construction (Arhitectura Journal 2-3/1966) elements. SC07: • Structural wall systems, consisting of large precast reinforced concrete panels, the size of a room; • Precast floor; • AAC partitions; 7. Ensemble on Calea Griviței – 1 1958-1963 The design of the housing ensembles from Calea Griviței, with a SC07: Mai total of almost 8,000 apartments, raised from the very beginning • Structural wall systems, quite many problems: the lack of a city plan to specify the main consisting of large precast traffic network, the routes and the profiles of the arterial roads, reinforced concrete panels, the zoning, the structural principles of the neighborhoods, the size of a room; building height and population density, socio-cultural amenities, • Precast floor; construction phasing and development of utilities infrastructure • AAC partitions; etc. (Arhitectura Journal 2/1961) 8. North Station Ensemble 1958-1963 The North Station square is one of the great ensembles created in SC02: Bucharest and one of the first architectural squares developed in • Monolithic reinforced the capital city, as well as one of the main gateways to the city. concrete structural frames The study developed to design the fronts of the square included with thick floor slabs, the construction of three apartment blocks, more specifically: diaphragms or monolithic 303 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation block A and C on the East side of Gării de Nord Street, and block B skeleton and filling on the West side – Dinicu Golescu Blvd. The design of the masonry; apartment blocks included the following goals: to obtain as many • Experimentation, especially apartments as possible, which led to the use of a segment with in facades, with large various execution and depth options, by adding an extension to prefabricated reinforced concrete panels; the main body of the segment; the use, for the most part, of a single segment with connection options; improved comfort, by • Structural design errors: floor diaphragms turned fitted wardrobes, shelves etc. into ground floor pillars, (Arhitectura Journal 2/1962) removal of ground floor pillars. 9. Ensemble in Băneasa 1977-1990 The systematization of this area, which is a gateway to the city, SC09: preserves the existing structure and a number of constructions in • Mixed compositions, with good condition, with one or two floors, which were integrated in honeycomb or cellular the built-in fronts. The rectangular street network divides the structural walls, but also space into enclosures, surrounded by new apartment blocks with skeleton systems which benefit from playgrounds, parking lots, technical consisting of beams and reinforced concrete constructions etc. The vast green area around the lakes imposed frames; the P+3, P+4 height which enables the harmonious integration of • They use precast elements: the new constructions in the vegetation frame and scale. Some large panels for the facade, higher notes, P+5, along the fronts towards major arterial roads non-structural walls made punctuate the city view with a P+7 volume. The ensemble of AAC strips, precast space includes a total number of 226 apartments, for the aeronautical cells etc.; industrial platform, and all the utilities and the services which • The use of sliding provide functional independence within the city: shops, school, structures is being reduced. nursery, clinic, club with cinema hall, etc. SC11: (Arhitectura Journal /1981) • Structures entirely made of large precast reinforced concrete panels; • Light inner partition walls. 304 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation 10. Ensemble Primăverii – Calea 1977-1990 After the vast residential ensembles at the periphery of the city, SC10: Dorobanților planning for the large arterial roads required a conceptual shift in • Structures that enable the design. The goal was to create a representative street front, freely partitioning spaces uninterrupted and coherent, while maintaining the existing useful on the ground floor: thick housing stock and the street network. The main idea was to slab frames: rare diversity the building volumes, both in terms of height and in diaphragms, closing walls and light facades; terms of artistic expression. The new residential ensemble on Calea Dorobanților increased the housing stock in the area by • The attempts to remove beams or to reduce about 41,995 m2, more specifically 1,388 apartments and 17,068 diaphragms to obtain free m2 of retail units. space at the ground floor (Arhitectura Journal 6/1977) caused significant damage at the 1977 earthquake. 11. Ensemble Floreasca 1950-1958 Standard sections series n. 140/1954 designed by the Design SC01: 1958-1963 Institute of Bucharest were used to build comfortable housing • Load-bearing masonry facilities, more specifically blocks of 2-7 segments. The result was made of bricks, with a composition of 84 blocks built from the centralized state fund, transverse or longitudinal and 22 blocks built in cooperation, including 2,621 apartments for walls 9,128 persons. If we add the 920 residents from the existing • Low level of buildings, Floreasca reaches the size of a small city. industrialization and prefabrication, applied to (Arhitectura Journal 6/1967) small construction elements. SC05: • Load-bearing masonry of ceramic blocks, with reinforced concrete columns and belts; • Reinforced concrete precast (or monolithic) floors; 305 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation 12. Ensemble on Lacul Tei Blvd 1977-1990 A characteristic feature of this ensemble is the asymmetric SC10: transverse profile of the arterial road, imposed by the one-floor • Structures that enable villas built on the Southern side of the neighborhood and freely partitioning spaces covering an area of approximately 400 m, a school, the on the ground floor: thick Constructions Institute and the Emilia Irza Hospital. The ensemble slab frames: rare includes a total number of 1,750 apartments, and retail facilities diaphragms, closing walls and light facades; which cover a floor area of 4,700 m2. In general, the apartment blocks are standard buildings with reusable sections and an • The attempts to remove beams or to reduce advanced degree of industrialization, except for several unique diaphragms to obtain free blocks. space at the ground floor (Arhitectura Journal 1-2/1980) caused significant damage at the 1977 earthquake. 13. Ensemble on Colentina Road 1977-1990 The Colentina ensemble covered a total length of 3 km, with an — average depth of 400 m. The extremity is marked by the outer boundary of the Capital, determined by Fundeni Road. The projects, the urban planning and architectural solutions, together with the functional and technical solutions proposed, aimed at solving the following major issues: simultaneous construction of both building fronts along the arterial road, with convenient depths, in parallel with the development of the necessary social and cultural amenities; harmonious integration of natural elements such as: uneven terrain, lakes, green spaces, etc. and historically and architecturally valuable buildings; the construction of a main arterial road in the city, Colentina Road, which will take over the entire traffic, both now and in the future; the development of an adequate urban-architectural framework, typical for the new neighborhood, varied and interesting, characterized by unity of expression, and high economic efficiency; the provision of all urban comfort for a new residential neighborhood. Briefly, 120 apartment blocks were built in the 306 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation new Colentina neighborhood, with a total number of 14,000 apartments for 50,000 residents. The housing density is 12,500 m2 /ha. Retail units total a surface of approximately 18,000 m2. (Arhitectura Journal 6/1977) 14. Ensemble on Pantelimon Road 1970-1977 The goal was to create an urban frame with compact fronts, open SC10: 1977-1990 at the main crossroads and towards deeper penetrations in the • Structures that enable green or leisure spaces, highlighted by the placement of buildings freely partitioning spaces and by higher apartment blocks, which create a certain pace on the ground floor: thick throughout the route. The characteristic data for the segment slab frames: rare between Vergului Road and the Stadium Boulevard are as follows: diaphragms, closing walls and light facades; surface - 50 ha; number of apartments - 13,600; population (12 m2/pers): 36,425 residents; net density – 10,800 m2 residents/ha. • The attempts to remove beams or to reduce (Arhitectura Journal 4/1975) diaphragms to obtain free space at the ground floor caused significant damage at the 1977 earthquake. 15. Berceni neighborhood and the 1963-1970 The construction schedule included two stages, meaning the SC09: Metalurgiei Boulevard 1970-1977 construction of 15,000 apartments each. The specific information • Mixed compositions, with ensemble was the need to build fast - therefore to use high productivity honeycomb or cellular 1977-1990 technologies and create high buildings - P+4 and P+9. The structural walls, but also (Metalurgiei ensemble should host 11,000 families, covering a territory of with skeleton systems Boulevard) consisting of beams and approximately 100 ha, which means approximately 35,000 reinforced concrete residents, similar with a small-town population. frames; (Arhitectura Journal 4/1968) • They use precast elements: large panels for the facade, non-structural walls made of AAC strips, precast space cells etc.; • The use of sliding structures is being reduced. 307 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation 16. North-South arterial road, 1958-1963 One of the important tasks received by IPCMC in 1960 was to SC07: Tineretului – Dimitrie Cantemir design two large residential ensembles along the North-South • Structural wall systems, Boulevard arterial road; the penetration depth Mărășești Square – Șincai consisting of large precast high school and the ensemble in Pieptănari Square. Both reinforced concrete panels, ensembles were classified as pilot projects, as they were too use the size of a room; new materials and highly industrialized construction methods, so • Precast floor; as to shorten the execution time, to reduce costs and to enhance • AAC partitions; comfort. The first stage means a total of 1,148 apartments, mostly 2-room apartments, abut also 3-room, 1-room and 4-room apartments. The second stage presented the problem of being structured along an older urban planning solution, but it started from the idea of a reconsideration of the ensemble planning, so as to achieve a solution which is better suited to the current urban planning principles. (Arhitectura Journal 3/1961) 17. Ensemble Balta Albă – Titan / 1950-1958 The aim of efficient land use determined a variable density of SC06: Dudești 1963-1970 constructions. Each structural unit had the following densities • Structures with skeleton planned: for the central areas along the arterial roads - a density (frames and beams) or with 1970-1977 of 5.500 m2 floor area/ha; in the large residential ensembles in reinforced concrete 1977-1990 diaphragms, with intensive the East, West and South – 5,000 m2 floor area/ha; near the lakes and North to the lakes (in case of building adjacent residential use of sliding mold technology; neighborhoods) – an average density of 4,500 m2 floor area/ha, which resulted due to the use of a wide range of types of • Filling masonry made of ceramic blocks (rarely, for buildings, from single family villas to very high buildings located in the time being, AAC); planted areas. • Reinforced concrete (Arhitectura Journal 1/1971) precast or monolithic floors; SC05: • Load-bearing masonry of ceramic blocks, with 308 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation reinforced concrete columns and belts; • Reinforced concrete precast (or monolithic) floors; SC07: • Structural wall systems, consisting of large precast reinforced concrete panels, the size of a room; • Precast floor; • AAC partitions. SC08: • Buildings built entirely of large precast reinforced concrete panels, for 9-11 floors; • AAC non-structural walls; • Plans with two axes of symmetry are preferred due to constraints caused by the reduction of type and size of prefabricated elements. SC09: • Mixed compositions, with honeycomb or cellular structural walls, but also with skeleton systems consisting of beams and 309 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation reinforced concrete frames; • They use precast elements: large panels for the facade, non-structural walls made of AAC strips, precast space cells etc.; • The use of sliding structures is being reduced. SC11: • Structures entirely made of large precast reinforced concrete panels; • Light inner partition walls. SC12: • High degree of industrialization for structures that are not fully precast: reinforced concrete columns or frames, precast (slab), rare diaphragms in cell system; • Light closures for facades and partitions. 18. Ensemble Baba Novac 1950-1958 There are 5 types of blocks resulted from the varied assembly of SC01: 1958-1963 these apartments: A, B, C, D, E. They have the following common • Load-bearing masonry characteristics: made of bricks, with 1963-1970 • Economic solutions for balancing the apartments, by transverse or longitudinal 1970-1977 walls reaching the right dimensioning of living and auxiliary rooms, by eliminating lost spaces and by reducing walking • Low level of spaces; industrialization and prefabrication, applied to 310 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation • Direct lighting and ventilation of all rooms in the apartment, small construction including the storerooms; elements. • Flat layout which enables favorable orientation of the main SC04: rooms in any location; • Longitudinal load-bearing • Modular and standardized constructions, allowing to masonry, either traditional experiment with different building systems and to perform type or made of large different methods of works execution, from traditional to blocks of masonry, with mechanized; reinforced concrete pits or • The use of mandatory horizontal and vertical mobility pillars; patterns to ensure access to apartments, as ornamental • Precast floor elements: elements for facades; • Hollow core slabs; • Sufficient variety of types of blocks to favor the overall • Reinforced concrete architectural composition and to build a range of precast elements; apartments with different layouts, to experiment; • Ceramic or prestressed • Each apartment has a terrace or a loggia, either individual or concrete pieces, with collective, with the latter built very efficiently with a slight portions of monolithic overextension of the horizontal plan; floors, where the • The use of succinct and expressive architecture for the installations pass; outer ornamentation, inspired by our traditional • Relatively good thermal architectural values. behavior. (Arhitectura Journal 2/1957) SC06: • Structures with skeleton (frames and beams) or with reinforced concrete diaphragms, with intensive use of sliding mold technology; • Filling masonry made of ceramic blocks (rarely, for the time being, AAC); 311 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation • Reinforced concrete precast or monolithic floors; SC09: • Mixed compositions, with honeycomb or cellular structural walls, but also with skeleton systems consisting of beams and reinforced concrete frames; • They use precast elements: large panels for the facade, non-structural walls made of AAC strips, precast space cells etc.; • The use of sliding structures is being reduced. 19. State Circus Residential 1958-1963 The need to provide an adequate framework for the Public Circus, SC07: ensemble 1977-1990 with the most favorable access and exit routes, generated a • Structural wall systems, detailed study for planning and building an area covering about consisting of large precast 40 ha. The position of the Circus determined the two important reinforced concrete panels, access routes in the park: one from Ștefan cel Mare Road, along a the size of a room; 350m long esplanade, and the other from the crossroad Barbu • Precast floor; Văcărescu Street, with Dinu Vintilă Street and with Lacul Tei Blvd, • AAC partitions. along 1 180 m long esplanade. These two access routes determined the two structures of the residential ensemble. The group from Ștefan cel Mare Road includes the apartment blocks and the entry gate to the esplanade. The solution for this group of blocks had to take into consideration the height of the second ring, more specifically Ștefan cel Mare Road (P+7), 312 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation combined with the adequate height level for an esplanade leading to a green area. The construction of the apartment blocks used the same sections (except for the extremities with more special solutions), and the facades include common elements. The segments with three apartments per floor have facades with loggias, which create ornamental elements alternating from one floor to another, highlighted by colors. The 7 blocks include 727 apartments which can accommodate 3,200 residents. The second group of blocks, built in 1962, includes 13 buildings, of which 7 P+11 flagship blocks. This second group of blocks includes approximately 887 apartments. (Arhitectura Journal 6/1961) 20. Residential quarter in Vatra 1950-1958 Vatra Luminoasă quarter is part of the microdistrict bordered by SC01: Luminoasă the following streets: Vatra Luminoasă, Victor Manu, Maior • Load-bearing masonry Coravu and Mihai Bravu Road. The works included a total of 7 made of bricks, with blocks, P+3. The main facility included a decorative basin placed transverse or longitudinal in the middle of a planted area. The quarter covers 3.6, with 25% walls construction density. The residential ensemble hosts 1,950 • Low level of residents in 36 apartments. industrialization and prefabrication, applied to (Arhitectura Journal 10-11/1958) small construction elements. 21. Residential ensemble in 1950-1958 Residential group (1950-1958) on Ana Davilla street: Three types SC04 (1958-1963): Cotroceni neighborhood 1958-1963 of housing were designed in front of the Medicine Faculty: 4 • Longitudinal load-bearing blocks with 3-room apartments, 3 blocks with 2-room apartments masonry, either traditional and one block with 1-room apartments for single persons. The type or made of large sections were designed so that no room is smaller than 16 m2. blocks of masonry, with The total number of apartments is 72, of which 12 are 1-room reinforced concrete pits or pillars; apartments, 36 are -room apartments and 24 are 3-room apartments; the accommodation capacity is 288 persons. When • Precast floor elements: 313 Ensemble name Date Initial features Building system Current situation structuring the apartments, the designers aimed at providing the • Hollow core slabs; best comfort possible and at reducing the walking areas as much • Reinforced concrete as possible. precast elements; (Arhitectura Journal 10-11/1958). • Ceramic or prestressed concrete pieces, with Residential quarter (1950–1958) with more than 200 apartments portions of monolithic and approximately 250 rooms for single persons. It covers 2.5 ha, floors, where the the constructions take 5,362 m2, reaching for a construction rate installations pass; of 21.4% and a population density of 500 inhabitants/ha. All block • Relatively good thermal access entrances are placed in the inner part of the quarter, behavior. which better isolates from the street traffic. The center of the yard includes a water fountain and a basin which, together with the green areas, the playground, the benches and other ornamental elements, provide a pleasant enclosure. The blocks are withdrawn from the street pavement by 5 and 10 meters, which enabled for green strips before the facade. (Arhitectura Journal 9/1957) The groups of blocks (1958–1963) located on both sides of the esplanade leading to the Military Academy includes 3 types of buildings, 10 blocks in total: type A - 5 blocks p+4, consisting in 2 segments with 38 apartments; type B - 3 blocks P+3 consisting in one segment with 15 apartments; type C - two blocks P+4 consisting in three segments with 53 apartments. The facade ornamentation matches the architectural style of the Military Academy and of the surrounding buildings. (Arhitectura Journal 5/1960) Source: Adapted after various issues of the Arhitectura Journal. 314 ANNEX 4: PUBLIC SPACES INVENTORY SHEET185 Criterion Evaluation 1.0 Name 1.1 Space name 2.0 Location 2.1 Country RO 2.2 County — 2.3 Locality Bucharest 186 2.4 Neighborhood 2.5 Street 2.6 Number 2.7 Postcode: 2.8 Map projection system WGS84 2.9 Geometric centroid Latitude: Longitude: Altitude: 2.0 Type 2.1 Representative public space187 2.2 Local public space188 3.0 Geometry 3.1 Point189 3.2 Line190 3.3 Surface191 4.0 Access 4.1 Unlimited public access 4.2 Limited public access 5.0 Accessibility 5.1 The space is located less than 150 m away from a Yes public transport station192 185 For the purposes of this inventory sheet, a public space must meet the following two conditions: first of all, in principle, all people should be able to rest in a public space. Secondly, these are places where the exclusion principle (which means that the owner of certain goods can exclude others from its use, unless they pay for it) does not apply or it applies in a very limited manner (see Selle, 2010: 18ff.). Thus, the two conditions avoid the problem wit providing a precise definition of public spaces. 186 To guarantee information traceability, the distribution of spaces by neighbourhoods was made using the Bucharest neighbourhoods map. 187 To facilitate classification, the representative public spaces are those which are renowned outside Bucharest. 188By elimination, local public spaces are those spaces which are not renowned outside Bucharest. However, they are important for the communities which use them. 189Point-like spaces are relatively small in size. This category usually includes squares or organised areas which cover less than 3 hectares. 190 In the case of linear spaces, their length exceeds by far their width. This category usually includes streets, boulevards etc., together with their buffers. 191 Surface spaces cover areas exceeding 3 hectares. This includes public gardens (3-15 ha), parks (over 15 ha) etc. 192 Measured along the shape of the space analysed. 315 Criterion Evaluation No 6.0 Use 6.1 Space used for necessary activities193 6.2 Space used for optional activities194 6.3 Space used for social activities195 6.4 Space used during the day 6.5 Space used during the night 7.0 Characteristics 7.1 Sidewalk share196 [XX]% 7.2 Canopy197 [XX]% 7.3 Access of people with disabilities Easy Difficult Impossible 7.4 Bicycle lanes Yes No 7.5 Bicycle parking facilities Yes No 7.6 Seats Yes, in the shadow Yes, not in the shadow No 7.7 Drinking fountains Yes No 7.8 Public toilets Yes No 7.9 Playgrounds Yes No 7.10 Sports facilities Yes No 8.0 Comments 8.1 Comments 193 Necessary activities which are, usually, compulsory. They include going to school, to work, shopping etc. Necessary activities are independent from the weather conditions and from the quality of the built environment (see Gehl, 2006: 9). 194Optional activities depend on the participants’ condition and on the quality of the built environment. They include: outdoor walks, sunbathing, running etc. (see ibid.: 11). 195Social activities depend on the presence of other participants and on the quality of the built environment. They include: children games, conversations, outdoor concerts etc. (see ibid.: 12ff.) 196 Compared to the surface of the space analysed. 197 Compared to the surface of the space analysed. 316 ANNEX 5: BUCHAREST NEIGHBORHOODS, ACCORDING TO THE DYNAMIC PUG TECHNICAL SOLUTION 317 ANNEX 6: GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE ANALYTICAL CRITERIA USED FOR PUBLIC SPACES Diffuse Spatial criteria - typologies: Concentrated/punctual Linear Sequence of successive spaces Administrative-political Retail/Dominant types of retail, shopping malls Leisure/Culture/Religion Functional criteria Sport Green areas Functional mix Functional consistency - dominant and/or complementary functions Level of use: daily; daytime/night time; weekly; depending on season Geometric size Size-related criteria Capacity – no. of people in the audience Scale of public space compared to the city Road, pedestrian, bicycle connections Relative to large arterial roads Accessibility Parking lots Relative to large population concentrations Relative to public transport networks – by types of transport means Relative to city entry/exit routes Location Relative to population concentrations - large neighborhoods; relative to new insertions of housing units Macro-location in the city - central Relative to large arterial roads location Relative to Dâmbovița axis; relative to the lake area in the Northern part of the city Historical criterion Age Stated value - LMI Composition - aesthetic criteria Overall evaluation of the urban landscape quality: clarity; originality Texture; color; materials; vegetation Style unity Symbolic criteria Relative importance, maybe in years Possible human interactions Physical condition criteria Building integrity Spatial integrity/definition Sunlight Microclimate criteria Pollution Evaluation of major air currents 318 ANNEX 7: SECTOR SHEET. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SPACES Sector 1 Figure 228. Point-like, abandoned, linear and surface spaces in Sector 1 Source: The authors. The development and management of public spaces as an integral part of a wider urban infrastructure requires a deeper understanding of the opportunities and challenges which are specific to each city. For example, some challenges can produce only local effects, while other can impact the entire city. Sector 1, due to the current distribution of public spaces, is mainly facing a public space problem which impacts the entire city. Although many small-sized public spaces still need rehabilitation and urban amenities (urban furniture, public toilets, bicycle parking facilities, quality lighting etc.), the management of the above ground public spaces (the park network) and the relation with water are still inefficient. Still, most water banks are still not accommodated or accessible to the public. Recent individual housing developments along the water have compromised access to significant parts of the lake banks. Also, the connections between leisure areas intensely used by residents and tourists (Herăstrău Park – Băneasa Forest) are not yet sufficiently valorized. The network can be supplemented by adding connecting elements such as streets with roadside vegetation, bicycle lanes, and protection elements like squares or gardens in areas with a dense fabric. Additionally, the opportunity of building new relations at city level should integrate concepts such as “the street as urban ecosystem”. Such a concept integrates some essential elements for enhancing the quality of a public space, such as: 319 • Rainwater capture and filtering systems in areas where more than 60% of the surface is mineral. This type of green infrastructure improves air quality, mitigates the negative effects of the heat islands and creates habitats for new species of plants, birds and insects; • The inclusion of green elements along the major arterial roads improves the mental state and health of the population by increasing air quality, by creating shaded areas and by the new relation with the natural elements; • Against the background of climate change (longer heat periods, with increasing temperatures), the rainwater capture and filtering systems can facilitate the maintenance of public green spaces, which will lead to lower maintenance costs. Figure 229. Statistical data on point-like and abandoned spaces, Sector 1 Source: The authors. 320 Figure 230. Statistical data on linear and surface spaces, Sector 1 Source: The authors. 321 Sector 2 Figure 231. Point-like, abandoned, linear and surface spaces in Sector 2 Source: The authors. Although Sector 2 lacks large green spaces, recent investments in new parks and squares managed to ensure better coverage with public spaces for most residential areas (except for Andronache neighborhood). However, there are land reserves and abandoned spaces which can be valorized to shape the public space network. Similarly to Sector 1, it is essential that the efforts of planning for the lake banks should continue and should be integrated in a coherent leisure concept at city level. Sector 2 still lacks spaces which could host community events, therefore it needs more small-sized public spaces within the collective housing facilities (see Figure 231). 322 Figure 232. Statistical data on point-like and abandoned spaces, Sector 2 Source: The authors 323 Figure 233. Statistical data on linear and surface spaces, Sector 2 Source: The authors. 324 Sector 3 Figure 234. Point-like, abandoned, linear and surface spaces in Sector 3 Source: The authors. Although in the past years Sector 3 has carried out various rehabilitation activities for the existing public spaces, the area at the periphery and the one North of Dâmbovița are still not sufficiently equipped with leisure amenities. Just like in the case of other sectors, the Zonal Urban Plan provides for the densification of the outer areas of the middle ring, which implicitly generates a higher demand for leisure spaces in the future. Because the vast majority of plots are private property, Sector 3 will have to design a strategy which should focus on consolidating the scattered small-sized public spaces, connected to the large scale green areas (Titan Park and Pantelimon Park). Also, it is necessary to create green corridors towards the Southern part of the city, which should be connected to Dâmbovița, towards the city center. 325 Figure 235. Statistical data on point-like and abandoned spaces, Sector 3 Source: The authors 326 Figure 236. Statistical data on linear and surface spaces, Sector 3 Source: The authors 327 Sector 4 Figure 237. Point-like, abandoned, linear and surface spaces in Sector 4 Source: The authors. Similarly to other sectors, in Sector 4, the largest share of public spaces is concentrated near the middle ring, mostly in the large residential ensembles (Berceni neighborhood). The problems lay in the South East area (Apărătorii Patriei), where individual housing developments have generated inefficient land consumption, and the necessary housing amenities are almost non-existent. However, the presence of Tineretului Park, Văcărești Delta and Carol Park means major potential for the sector, especially due to their enhanced accessibility (Olteniței Road and Șerban Vodă Road are tangent to the three spaces). The strategy for Sector 4 should focus on strengthening the green areas between these spaces, on consolidating new public spaces in the South area and on the rehabilitation of point-like spaces in the neighborhoods. Văcărești Delta needs more attention, as it is not valorized at its full potential. 328 Figure 238. Statistical data on point-like spaces, Sector 4 Source: The authors 329 Figure 239. Statistical data on abandoned, linear and surface spaces, Sector 4 Source: The authors 330 Sector 5 Figure 240. Point-like, abandoned, linear and surface spaces in Sector 5 Source: The authors. Sector 5 is a special case in Bucharest, due to the lack of homogeneity in its neighborhoods. If, on the one hand, the central area includes many representative neighborhoods and spaces (Cotroceni, Izvor Park, People’s Palace, Constituției Square, Romanian Academy, Energiea), on the other hand, the areas outside the central ring are defined as problem areas for the entire city (Rahova neighborhood, Ferentari neighborhood), both in terms of basic functions necessary for housing and in terms of quality of public spaces. At the same time, the potential for change in the sector, even in terms of public spaces, is huge, due to its supply of available land (either free land or former industrial platforms) – Antiaeriană, the industrial axis spreading from North-West to the South and to the Rocar land or the Flower Market area, which has been under a functional reconversion process in the past 5 years (The Ark building). Consequently, the strategy for Sector 5 will have to focus on two main action lines. The first action line should control the development for the free areas or for areas under urbanization (Antiaeriană, Rocar, the industrial area and the peripheral area), and this control will have to be reflected in the lower levels of the urban planning documentations (PUG, PUZ). These documentations should provide for the 331 development of quality public spaces, under different public-private partnerships, with the possibility to connect them to the larger public space network of the city. A second action line should focus of the development and rehabilitation of small-sized public spaces, located in residential neighborhoods. The actions should target the development of public spaces with playgrounds, relaxation spaces, pedestrian routes, bicycle lanes and areas for various sports. The spacers between apartment blocks need re-planning, by a reorganization of parking lots which reduce public space and by planting various species of trees and shrubs which should maintain the vegetation benefits from one season to another. These spaces should also have contemporary waste collection systems and lighting systems to ensure safety, including during night time. Also, some of the major crossroads in the neighborhoods could be reconfigured and upgraded by introducing urban furniture and urban art objects. The need for such interventions is also confirmed by the sector residents in “Survey on the social issue of Sector 5 of Bucharest”198. Data interpretation identified seven neighborhoods, according to respondent self-positioning. These neighborhoods define areas with a stable cultural identity and assumed history. The seven neighborhoods are: Cotroceni, Uranus, Antiaeriană-Ghencea, Pieptănari, Rahova, Giurgiului and Ferentari.199 The data collection process highlighted various intervention priorities, some of them targeting directly the public space (see Table 21). For Antiaeriană and Ghencea, the important measures for community development are investments in cultural-sports infrastructure, in parking lots and green areas, in public lighting and in upgrading the spaces between apartment blocks. For Rahova and Giurgiului neighborhoods, the measures should aim at enhancing the education and healthcare facilities and at the identification and development of new waste collection areas. For Uranus, Pieptănari and Ferentari neighborhoods, beyond the need for jobs, the population identified as necessary investments is street modernization, waste collection and a better quality of the existing public spaces. 198 The survey was carried out by AB European Research Group for the World Bank, on a representative sample of 1001 respondents older than 18 years old, residents of District 5, during the data collection phase. The survey used random-route, stratified sampling. In the selection of respondents, the goal was to cover alll neighbourhoods in the district. The statistical margin of error, relative to the sample volume, for a 95% confidence interval, is +/- 3.2% 199 See Chirilă et al., 2020: 7f. 332 Table 21. Most important community development actions, identified by Sector 5 residents Actions C. A. C. C. C. F. C. G. C. P. C. R. C. U Investments in the social inclusion of 2.3 5.4 5.9 3.8 6.7 5.1 5.6 marginalized groups Job creation 3.8 7.8 7.0 6.8 7.8 7.6 7.1 Modernization of education 5.3 8.7 6.1 7.9 6.7 7.5 7.2 infrastructure (nurseries, kindergartens, schools, high schools) Modernization of healthcare and social 5.9 7.5 6,2 7.6 6,4 7.1 7.0 services (hospitals, clinics, childcare centers, elderly care centers, underprivileged persons etc.) Renewal and modernization of public 6.6 5.1 5.9 5.8 6.5 6.1 6,2 spaces, green spaces, areas between apartment blocks, public lightning Thermal insulation of apartment blocks 5.9 3.9 6.9 3.7 5.9 6.5 5.9 and facade renewal Improvement of waste collection 6.3 6,2 5.9 4.4 6.8 7.0 5.9 system Development of sports and cultural 6.6 4.9 6.1 5.0 5.9 6,2 6.3 infrastructure (gyms, swimming pools, skating rinks, performance venues) Modernization of streets and 5.8 4,7 6,4 5,7 6.9 6.3 6,4 pedestrian streets Development of new parking lots 7.8 4.2 6.0 4.8 6.3 6.1 6.1 C. A. – Antiaeriană Neighborhood C. P. – Pieptănari Neighborhood C. C. – Cotroceni Neighborhood C.R. – Rahova Neighborhood C. F. – Ferentari Neighborhood C. U – Uranus Neighborhood C. G – Giurgiului Neighborhood Source: Urban Rehabilitation Guide – Sector 5 333 Figure 241. Statistical data on point-like spaces, Sector 5 Source: The authors 334 Figure 242. Statistical data on linear and surface spaces, Sector 5 Source: The authors 335 Sector 6 Figure 243. Point-like, abandoned, linear and surface spaces in Sector 6 Source: The authors. The distribution of public spaces in Sector 6 indicates, similarly to the other sectors, the concentration of public spaces in the large residential ensembles. A significant share of point-like spaces is concentrated in Drumul Taberei, an airy neighborhood with many green areas, well covered with shopping centers, shops, education amenities and public transport. The largest green area here is Drumul Taberei Park (former Moghioroș Park), which covers 15 ha. However, the public space mapping indicates a relatively high number of abandoned spaces, between apartment blocks. Such spaces could be renewed and could cover some of the playgrounds needs, both for children and teenagers, even more necessary with the development, after 2000, of the Constantin Brâncuși neighborhood, west of Drumul Taberei neighborhood. This new neighborhood does not benefit from the necessary amenities, and most land plots are private property, which makes it more difficult for the Municipality to develop new leisure spaces. This is precisely why the local administration will have to focus on the rehabilitation of the already existing spaces in the proximity, which can be used by the residents of the newly- developed neighborhoods. Compared to Drumul Taberei, Militari neighborhood is not very well placed in terms of green areas. There are some small parks and areas developed as playgrounds, but there is a need for new ones. The largest park in the neighborhood is the Politehnica Park, but this is not equipped to provide leisure options for residents. 336 In Crângași neighborhood, Crângași Park is one of the attractions in Sector 6, after it was upgraded, with new benches, playgrounds for children, dedicated spaces for pets etc. Regular events, concerts, plays are hosted here. This is a fortunate addition to Morii Lake and to the promenade area around the lake. However, Morii Lake and Dâmbovița banks are not sufficiently developed for leisure activities yet. In order to increase the attractiveness of the area and of the sector, the lake banks and its island should be developed, with a promenade, relaxation spaces and running trails. The valorization of the unused space between Morii Lake and the western boundary of the sector by building a large park there could turn it, together with Morii Lake and Crângași Park, into an important attraction, a recreation and leisure pole of the Capital. Giulești Neighborhood lacks public spaces200, but the need to rehabilitate and modernize carriageways and streets is a much more important priority in this area. Regie area, renowned for the student campus, is a landmark for Sector 6. Although the neighborhood includes relatively numerous amenities for students, the quality of the public spaces still leaves much to be desired. In this area, the efforts should focus on the extent to which such spaces actually meet the needs of this age group and, where appropriate, there should be interventions for the modernization of public spaces and green spaces. Our recommendation is that public authorities should focus on the identification of all land plots which could be used as public spaces or parks and on their use accordingly. Vegetation planting interventions could also be implemented along linear spaces crossed by tramway lines. Bicycle lanes could be developed along these streets, and integrated in the larger network of the city, to connect Morii Lake area to other major green areas in the Capital. 200Nevertheless,in 2017, District 6 Municipality modernised the former Giulești Park (currently, “Marin Preda” Park). The new park provides residents with multiple options to spend their spare time, including sports. 337 Figure 244. Statistical data on point-like and abandoned spaces, Sector 6 Source: The authors 338 Figure 245. Statistical data on linear and surface spaces, Sector 6 Source: The authors 339 ANNEX 8: EXAMPLES OF POINT-LIKE, LINEAR AND SURFACE SPACES: Figure 246. Examples of point-like spaces in Sector 1 Source: Google Maps. Left (DOs) Luncani Park - quality pavement, landscape lighting, diversified vegetation; On the right (DON’Ts): Nicolae Iorga Park - neglected grassy areas, blurred boundaries between pedestrian and land areas, green areas fenced without reason etc. The materials and surfaces used in public spaces play an important role in the spatial, temporal and ideological context of a certain place. Beyond their functional role, materials and surfaces are essential for the sensory experience of the users, especially in terms of visual and tactile perceptions. This is why all materials and surfaces used in public spaces should have high visual and structural quality. 201 Figure 247. Examples of linear spaces in Sector 1 Source: Google Maps. 201 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 67. 340 On the left (DOs) Kiseleff Street - roadside vegetation, wide sidewalks, clearly regulated parking lots; On the right (DON’Ts): Calea Dorobanți - sidewalks affected by unregulated parking lots, inhomogeneous retail unit fronts, chaotically placed billboards etc. Roadside vegetation should be considered an element of the urban landscape and composition. Also, trees and shrubs can be used to integrate parking lots in the surrounding landscape. Normally, in order to ensure a coherent distribution of trees along a street with parking spots, it is recommended that one tree should be planted for every 5 parking spots. The minimum acceptable level is one tree to 8 parking spots.202 Figure 248. Examples of surface spaces in Sector 1 Source: Google Maps. On the left (DOs): alley in Băneasa forest - the natural aspect of the vegetation and of the alleys has been maintained and brings authenticity to this public space. There is still potential to improve the quality of this space by inserting lighting or urban furniture elements, without impacting on the natural aspect of the forest; On the right (DON’Ts) - alleys in Herăstrău Park - excessive mineralization of surfaces, large multi-joint pavement surfaces in an area used by cyclists or other athletes, roadside flower pots. Trees and perennial vegetation are important elements in public spaces. They regulate extreme temperatures in cities, stimulate air circulation and humidity, reduce dust and provide shadow etc. The roadside vegetation should not be replaced by vegetation in flower pots. The vegetation in flower pots brings much less benefits to the environment, and the maintenance costs are much higher.203 202 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 86. 203 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 81. 341 Figure 249. Examples of point-like spaces in Sector 2 Source: Google Maps. On the left (DOs) Izvorul Rece Park - although located along an arterial road, the development manages to create the feeling of privacy due to the positioning of the vegetation; On the right (DON’Ts): Carol Boulevard square - excessive mineralization of the surface; the lack of a clear function for the square encourages chaotic parking; lack of urban furniture and of a minimal structure dedicated to pedestrians and residents etc. The urban furniture can be associated with the living room of the city. Together with the vegetation elements, it helps making the best use of a public space. Street furniture should be robust enough to resist vandalism and easy to maintain. Components should be designed so as to be simple and efficient. The current problems related to the split management and the unsystematic and insufficient maintenance of the street furniture have a huge negative impact on public spaces, and debase them, with time.204 Figure 250. Examples of linear spaces in Sector 2 Source: Google Maps. 204 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 114. 342 On the left (DOs) Pantelimon Road – green tramway lines, rich roadside vegetation, regulated parking lots; On the right (DON’Ts): Mihai Bravu Road – vehicles parked unlawfully on the sidewalk, unaesthetic separation of the tramway lines from the carriageway, unaesthetic ground floor illuminated advertising etc. Tramway lines contribute to the development of a public space, making it more attractive when the route is naturally integrated with the adjacent space, so that it does not seem divided. In the city, especially in the city center, it is recommended that tramway routes should be integrated with the materials and surfaces used in the adjacent public spaces. This contributes to a unitary landscape of the public space and enables unrestricted mobility in that space, which is a very important characteristic in urban areas. Separate tramway routes should always be carefully designed having in mind the overall concept of the space they are crossing. Long sections, which are difficult to cross transversally, should not be used in urban areas, because they limit passage and fragment the public space. If such elements are used, they should be associated with a sufficient number of crosswalks and access ways. Green routes require costly maintenance, therefore alternative solutions can be used, e.g. xerophytic lawns. There are alternative surfaces which can enhance the quality of public spaces and can be used along tramway routes. Such an example can be seen in Grenoble, France, where the route is made of a wooden surface. Reinforced concrete slabs, without other types of finishing, should not be used in urban areas, because they are visually unpleasant and noisy. 205 Figure 251. Examples of surface spaces in Sector 2 Source: Google Maps. On the left (DOs) National Park - the relationship with water is properly valorized with transparent protective elements; On the right (DON’Ts): Sticlăriei Park – insalubrious space, without the specific amenities of a public space. Due to the lush vegetation, the park has the potential to be developed in a more natural design, with a low level of mineral areas. The relationship with water should be valorized in a public space, whenever possible. This can be achieved by building platforms or promenades which maintain visual connection with the water. Wetlands also have significant landscape value and can be valorized by means of soft development, which does not impact on their natural characteristics. The urban furniture and the amenities used in public spaces should be carefully selected, depending on the specificity of each space. 205 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 44. 343 Figure 252. Examples of point-like spaces in Sector 3 Source: Google Maps. On the left (DOs) Planted square - the square is well maintained, with lush vegetation, and the pavement creates a friendly feeling. However, it is important that such developments should not use striking colors, which interrupt the visual harmony of the wider space; On the right (DON’Ts) Playground Odobești Street - unfriendly and unsafe playground. The materials used for the pavement are not compliant with the safety requirements applicable to playgrounds (pebbles, concrete alleys). Also, vegetation is non-existent and benches have no shadow. The margins and the boundaries of the public space should be part of the overall composition of a space. They should not be treated as a physical barrier, but as a natural guiding line, which contributes to space organization. The vertical differentiation of spaces marks different purposes, facilitates mobility, protects pedestrians and directs rainfall drainage. In open spaces, they function as guiding lines for the visually impaired. Sidewalk curb can help define a certain space, with positive outcomes. Consequently, only high quality materials should be used. The adjacent surfaces dictate the type and the structure of the curbs. For pedestrian areas and crosswalks, the curbs should be lowered to the level of the carriageway, so that pedestrians, persons with disabilities and cyclists can use them easily.206 206 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 78. 344 Figure 253. Examples of linear spaces in Sector 3 Source: Google Maps. On the left (DOs) Unirii Boulevard - low curb in the bus stop area, appropriate markings for bus parking, large flower pots, with edges which can be used as sitting places, abundant vegetation; On the right (DON’Ts) Calea Vitan – very narrow curbs, inhomogeneous fronts, unaesthetic advertisement billboards. The visual quality, the functionality, the user comfort, the technical condition of the tramway and bus stops, together with the overall public transport culture have a direct influence on the attractiveness of stops and on the degree of public transport use. It is very important that the new infrastructure project eliminate vague or residual spaces. First and foremost, it is recommended that the public transport stop infrastructure should be integrated in the wider surrounding space (sidewalk, park, promenade etc.). Due to such interventions, the technical infrastructure will no longer dominate the area, and the respective space will no longer be strictly dedicated to road traffic. In such cases, the spaces can be developed so that the maintenance and the materials used are less demanding, as part of a larger investment for a larger area.207 207 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 43. 345 Figure 254. Examples of surface spaces in Sector 3 Source: Google Maps. On the left (DOs) IOR Park - quality materials are used, lush and well maintained vegetation, the relationship with water is valorized due to the alleys which lead to the lakes; On the right (DON’Ts): Titan swimming pool, Cara Park – the park is inadequately enclosed with a metal fence, unkempt vegetation, inexistent relationship with the adjacent pedestrian area etc. Public space enclosures should be as permeable as possible. Certain spaces should be separated from the neighboring areas for various reasons: traffic, protection, safety, maintenance etc. We include here the spaces which are open for public only during certain periods of the day, which require the payment of an access fee, which are protected because they are used as playgrounds for children, as parks or as gardens. The delimitation elements should be regarded as two-side structure, and their quality should always be monitored on both sides. Generally, the fences should not be perceived as barriers, but as part of the public space, with secondary uses. For example, a playground fence should also provide sitting places for parents. The sitting places can be combined with bushes or with a line of trees, without limiting the visibility towards neighboring areas.208 208 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 134. 346 Figure 255. Examples of point-like spaces in Sector 4 Source: Google Maps. On the left (DOs) Gazelei Park - simple, but well maintained development, with special attention to grassy areas. The playground is positioned inwards, protected from road traffic; On the right (DON’Ts) Playground, Tulnici Street - no vegetation and no urban furniture. The lack of amenities turns this space into an unsafe place, especially at night time, because there is no public lighting. Playgrounds imitate the natural experimentation of the environment. These spaces, together with the public leisure facilities are an alternative to the private sports grounds or for school sports grounds. The playgrounds are some of the most frequent public spaces, with much public funds are invested in them. Consequently, when a new playground is designed, various criteria should be considered, such as low maintenance costs, durability, vandal-resistance, user safety and traffic protection should be taken into account. Both the individual components and the entire playground should be divided by age groups. The common use of a certain space by different age groups can have a substantial contribution to social inclusion. Also, the playground configuration, proportions and capacity should reflect the character of the area hosting it.209 209 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 49. 347 Figure 256. Examples of linear spaces in Sector 4 Source: Google Maps. On the left (DOs) Berceni Road – unitary development, organized parking lots, green intermediary areas, small-sized bollards which protect the sidewalk, without impact on the overall landscape; On the right (DON’Ts) Luica Street - inefficiently organized parking spots, narrow sidewalks with damaged pavement, abundant vegetation which is not valorized because of the vehicles parked on the sidewalk etc. Parking lots in public spaces should be harmonized with the adjacent residential and retail activities. The parking space should be designed so as to enable unfettered pedestrian mobility in the public space. The development of a parking policy for the entire city is a prerequisite for the public spaces to be functional. The public property is valuable, and the parking spots occupy such space either free of charge, or for very small fees. The goal of a parking policy and regulation if to have a positive influence on the residents’ and visitors’ behaviors, gradually reducing the demand for parking spots and encouraging the use of public transport. Among the measures which can be applied for such purposes, we mention: limiting the parking time, parking fees, improving the public transport infrastructure, the implementation of a “car sharing” system etc. 210 210 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 47. 348 Figure 257. Examples of surface spaces in Sector 4 Source: Google Maps. Left (DOs/DON’Ts) Tineretului Park - harmonious development which enables various outdoor activities. However, the landscape development leaves much to be desired, and tall vegetation is almost non-existent; On the right (DON’Ts) Văcărești Delta - undeveloped access areas, with damaged and sometimes even dangerous pavement, due to reinforcement elements which are visible. Insalubrious promenade, without urban furniture and public space amenities (benches, water fountains, garbage bins). The quality of public spaces and of the wider network at city level could be enhanced by the implementation of a unitary, uninterrupted bicycle route. Beyond the recreational purpose, such a route could determine at least some of the residents to use bicycles when they travel in the city. In Văcărești Delta, such a route could be an integral part of a larger tourist route which provides connections with Dâmbovița and with the city center. 349 Figure 258. Examples of point-like spaces in Sector 5 Source: Google Maps. On the left (DOs) Sebastian Park - diversified vegetation, with benches in the shadow, with adequate pavement for a small-sized park, and playgrounds protected by roadside vegetation; On the right (DON’Ts) Ferentari park - damaged pavement, unkempt grassy areas, unaesthetic fencing, lack of specific amenities for public places (water fountains, garbage bins, sports grounds etc.). Sitting areas attract people to the public space. Public spaces should provide a wide range of sitting options, which should also include urban furniture with backrest. The integration of the sitting area in the overall concept of the space requires the effort to identify a pragmatic, efficient and economic design concept. The social issues and the criminality should not influence the decision whether to place sitting areas in a certain place or not, or their shape. These aspects should be tackled using other systematic means, such as restrictive or preventive measures. The sitting areas should be positioned near the existing sources of light and near natural elements, without affecting the area permeability. The urban furniture should be positioned according to the role of the public space (social interaction space, playground, relaxation, contemplation etc.). This determines both the number and the size of furniture elements, and their relation with the main access routes. It is recommended to analyze the possibility to combine the sitting areas with other pieces of furniture such as garbage bins or bicycle racks.211 211 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 116. 350 Figure 259. Examples of linear spaces in Sector 5 Source: Google Maps. On the left (DOs) Regina Elisabeta Boulevard - well maintained roadside vegetation, renewed pavement, generous sidewalks, building fronts without aggressive advertisement; On the right (DON’Ts):` Splaiul Independenței – narrow sidewalks, excessive use of separators, inexistent relationship with the water, unkempt roadside green areas, unaesthetic property boundaries. Normally, separators are used to delimitate different traffic lanes in a city (bicycle lanes, tramway routes, pedestrian routes etc.). However, such interventions should only be in place when the use of traffic markings is not sufficient to prevent drivers to enter unauthorized areas. Also, the use of a limited range of colors for all technical elements contributes to more uniformity and makes the public spaces visually more pleasant. The poles, garbage bins, railings, street furniture, all must be subordinated to a unitary image. The differences should always be justified based on the architectural composition of a space. 212 Figure 260. Examples of surface spaces in Sector 5 Source: Google Maps. 212 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 67. 351 Left (DOs/DON’Ts) Izvor Park - well maintained vegetation, smart lighting systems, natural alleys. However, the concept of the park is monotonous and it does not provide too many outdoor activity options; On the right (DON’Ts) Romniceanu Park - unkempt appearance of the park components, obsolete identification and orientation elements, made of unaesthetic materials. A unitary orientation and information system favors the efficient use of the public space and resident identification with a place. The various elements of the information system (guides, information panels, maps, etc.) should match the design and the personality of the other elements which make up that space. They should be in line with a concept developed for the entire city. Sub-areas with distinct personality can use customized information systems. Some of the management problems occur because such systems are exposed to the elements, and their monitoring and maintenance are costly. Consequently, boards and signs should be designed so as they are durable, resistant, easy to maintain and replace, if necessary.213 Figure 261. Examples of point-like spaces in Sector 6 Source: Google Maps. Left (DOs/DON’Ts) Parva Park, playground - stepping areas adequate for a playground, the sidewalk pavement provides both a chromatic and aesthetic match with the playground, there are no level differences between the pedestrian area and the playground, which gives the feeling of a much wider space; On the right (DON’Ts): Playground - unkempt appearance, the pavement is not suitable for activities with young children, and the curbs delimiting the play areas reduce the playground safety, the garages on the right are unaesthetic (they could be renewed with paintings for children), the sitting areas are not positioned in the shadow, the lighting is poor etc. When designing public spaces, the outdoor lighting should be included as a composition element. It also influences the overall picture and the personality of the built-up space. Outdoor lighting has various applications, among them: street lighting (streets, squares), architectural lighting (buildings, technical structures, works of art), sitting areas lighting, sports grounds lighting etc. Outdoor lighting enables people to be active in public spaces after sunset. The design selected for lighting should take into account the personality, the importance and the hierarchy of the public spaces in that city. 214 213 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 103. 214 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 107. 352 Figure 262. Examples of linear spaces in Sector 6 Source: Google Maps. Left (DOs/DON’Ts) Iuliu Maniu Boulevard - lane separator with low and tall vegetation, organized parking spots. However, the protection fence for the green area is unaesthetic and could be replaced with taller vegetation which plays the same role. The boulevard fronts are unaesthetic (the shop advertisement elements are not unitary, there are light unaesthetic kiosks) etc.; On the right (DON’Ts) Valea Oltului Street - unkempt vegetation and walking areas, poor vegetation, unaesthetic tramway stop. Important interactions for the city life happen at the border between the public and the private space. Consequently, the front area also require rehabilitation, if the purpose is to improve the quality of the public space. An active street front means dynamics, both indoors and outdoors. In other words, the indoor areas of the buildings are directly and permanently connected to the public space, both physically and visually. Thus, the sidewalk could be used for cafes, displays, benches etc. The width of such spaces should be in line with the front use intensity. On important street with a lifeless front. First of all, we need to identify what caused this situation. The reasons for improper functioning can include the road traffic, the lack of pedestrian areas or the poor quality of such areas. Thus, we need to identify the means to improve the quality of streets and sidewalks and possible options to reduce road traffic, where possible.215 215 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 34. 353 Figure 263. Examples of surface spaces in Sector 6 Source: Google Maps. On the left (DOs) Drumul Taberei - adequately maintained grassy areas, different materials used in a unitary manner, promenade with sitting places along the artificial lake, design elements which contribute to the space identity (the bridge over the water); On the right (DON’Ts): Grozăvești Park - large grassy area, without a proper drainage system. Unkempt pedestrian area, without clear delimitation from the green space which should provide drainage and protect the walking area from the adjacent earth areas. The development and maintenance of a lawn are costly processes. Consequently, lawns should be proposed where they serve a recreational purpose and can have a unitary function. As landscape elements, their role is either to unify at compositional and visual levels, or to highlight planted compositions or built-up structures. The different types of lawns should be carefully selected depending on the frequency of use and on the costs the administration can pay for their maintenance. The first decision is whether the lawn is for intensive use (ornamental, park, playground) or for extensive use (lawn). An intensive lawn needs maintenance up to 30 times per year, therefore they should not be proposed in residual spaces. From a more technical perspective, a soil analysis must be conducted from the very beginning, then the soil must be treated against compaction, an irrigation system must be in place and the areas to be planted must be prepared. 216 216 See Chirilă et al. (2020): 90. 354 REFERENCES Aprahamian, A. S. (ed.) (2018), Laser Valley: Development Scenarios. 24, document available at http://bit.ly/2RTJen1 (December 2020) Bizer, K., Ewen, C., Knieling, J. și Stieß, E. (eds.) (2009), Zukunftsvorsorge in Stadtquartieren durch Nutzungszyklus-Management. Qualitäten entwickeln und Flächen sparen in Stadt und Region. Detmold: Dorothea Rohn. Bizer, K., Ewen, C., Knieling, J. și Stieß, E. (eds.) (2010), Nachfrageorientiertes Nutzungszyklus-Management. Konzeptionelle Überlegungen für nachhaltiges Flächenmanagement in Stadt und Region . Detmold: Dorothea Rohn. Caffé, M. and Florian, A. (1987), Performanțele locuinței contemporane, în Caffé, M. (ed.), Locuința contemporană. Probleme și puncte de vedere. București: Editura Tehnică, pp. 98-155. Calotă, I. (2017), Dincolo de centru. Politici de locuire în București (1910-1944). București: Ozalid. Chen, P. Y. și Cooper, C. L. (eds.) (2014), Work and Wellbeing. Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide. Volume III. Chichester (WSX): John Wiley & Sons. Chirilă, C-T. et al (2020), Ghid de Reabilitare Urbană — Sectorul 5. București: World Bank Cooper, R., Burton, E. și Cooper, C. L. (eds.) (2014), Wellbeing and the Environment. Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide. Volume II. Chichester (WSX): John Wiley & Sons. Cristea, D. (1977), Dotările urbane, în Lăzărescu, C. (coord.), Urbanismul în România. București: Editura Tehnică, pp. 94-101. Derer, P. (1977), Locuirea urbană și problemele locuinței, în Lăzărescu, C. (coord.), Urbanismul în România. București: Editura Tehnică, pp. 42-93. Derer, P. (1985), Locuirea urbană. Schiță pentru o abordare evolutivă. București: Editura Tehnică. Ghețău, V. (2012), Drama noastră demografică. Populația României la recensământul din octombrie 2011 . București: compania. Hanell, T. (2018), Regional Quality of Life in the EU. Comprehending the European Space beyond GDP through the Capability Approach. PhD Thesis available at: http://bit.ly/2u83CJ8 (December 2020). Huppert, F. și Cooper, C. L. (eds.) (2014), Interventions and Policies to Enhance Wellbeing. Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide. Volume VI. Chichester (WSX): John Wiley & Sons. Kaw, J. K., Lee, H., Wahba, S. (2020), The Hidden Wealth of Cities. Creating, Financing and Managing Public Spaces. Washington (DC): International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Kirkwood, T. și Cooper, C. L. (eds.) (2014), Wellbeing in Later Life. Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide. Volume IV. Chichester (WSX): John Wiley & Sons. Landry, S. H. and Cooper, C. L. (eds.) (2014), Wellbeing in Children and Families. Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide. Volume I. Chichester (WSX): John Wiley & Sons. McDaid, D. and Cooper, C. L. (eds.) (2014), Economics of Wellbeing. Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide. Volume V. Chichester (WSX): John Wiley & Sons. Monteys, X. (2018), La calle y la casa. Urbanismo de interiores. Barcelona: Gustavo Gilli Publishing House. Nae, A. et al (2019), Ghid de Regenerare Urbană a Cartierelor de Blocuri – Constanța. București: World Bank Romanian Order of Architects (2016), Raportul pentru București. Bucharest: the Romanian Order of Architects. Onofrei, V. (2002), Locuința colectivă. Evoluție și calitate. Iași: Editura Societății Academice „Matei – Teiu Botez”. Panaitescu, A. (2012), De la Casa Scânteii la Casa Poporului. Patru decenii de arhitectură în București (1945- 1989). București: Simetria. Pop, S., Ricci, T., Cristescu, G., Fulicea, V. și Vernescu, D. (1968), București. București: Institut Proiect București. Pope, A. (2014), Ladders. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, p. 9. Rău, R. and Mihuță, D. (1969), Unități urbanistice complexe. București: Editura Tehnică. Selle, K. (2010), Stadträume im Wandel. Einführung in die Diskussion um eine zentrale Aufgabe der Stadtentwicklung, în Havemann, A. și Selle, K. (Eds.), Plätze, Parks & Co. Stadträume im Wandel — Analysen, Positionen und Konzepte. Detmold: Dorothea Rohn, pp. 16-87. Stroe, M. (2015), Locuirea între proiect și decizie politică. România 1954-1966. București: Simetria. 355 Suditu, B. (2016), Bucureștiul în locuințe și locuitori, de la începuturi până mai ieri (1459-1989). București: Compania. Tulbure, I. (2016), Arhitectură și urbanism în România anilor 1944-1960: constrângere și experiment. București: Simetria. Voiculescu, S. (1997), Parohia, Revista Secolul XX, 4-6, pp. 146-153. Voinea, A. R. (2018), Idealul locuirii bucureștene: familia cu casă și grădină. Parcelările Societății Comunale pentru Locuințe Ieftine — București (1908-1948). București: Studio Zona. Qawasmeh R., Identification of the quality of urban life assessment aspects in residential neighbourhoods in Doha, article in The Sustainable City IX, Vol. 1 391 Lynch, K (2010). The Image of the Environment and the City Image and its Elements. In M. Larice, & E. Macdonald, The Urban Design Reader. New York: Routledge, 153-166, p. 158, 2010 Webografie (piața imobiliară): • State of the Housing in EU 2019 (Statutul Locuinței în UE în 2019), raport al Uniunii Europene • PwC and the Urban Land Institute. Emerging Trends in Real Estate Europe 2019. London: PwC and the Urban Land Institute, 2018 • Emerging Trends in Real Estate Europe 2019, Europe Economic & Commercial Real Estate Outlook, 2018, Cushman & Wakefield • https://www.realestate.bnpparibas.com/european-office-market-2019-edition • http://europe-re.com/european-office-take-up-to-reach-9-2-million-m-by-the-end-of-2019/67253 • https://www.realestate.bnpparibas.com/european-office-market-2019-edition • The Polish Real Estate Guide 2019 edition Poland, The real state of the real estate • What’s up CEE? All you need to know about real estate in CEE, BNP Parisbas 2019 • https://www.imobiliare.ro/indicele-imobiliare-ro/ • https://www.analizeimobiliare.ro/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Raport_2019 • https://www.vitalis.com/news/131/45/Office‐market‐evolution‐over‐the‐past‐5‐years‐inBucharest‐ and‐major‐regional‐cities • https://content.knightfrank.com/research/1856/documents/en/romania-market-report-h1-2019- 6705.pdf • Retail – Regional Cities 2019, Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, 2019 • Romania Real Estate Market Report, GVA Activ, spring 2019 • Romanian residential market report, Q3 2019, analizeimobiliare.ro și imobiliare.ro • Specialist Reports by Colliers International, JLL, Cushman & Wakefield l Echinox, PWC, Deloitte, KPMG, analizeimobiliare.ro on Bucharest 356 357