A possible typology and spatial distribution of Klinenberg’s social infrastructure in Hungarian cities

Abstract

The study examines the spatial patterns of social infrastructure (SI), as defined by Eric Klinenberg (2018), in the Eastern European context at the district level. A Hungarian case study of five regional centres with populations over 100,000 shows that urban districts have distinct social infrastructure characteristics. These include high concentrations of social infrastructure in city centres (social infrastructure oases, especially in pedestrian streets where service-dominated SI are found), “social infrastructure deserts” in certain high-status suburban family-house districts, and relatively dense provision in socialist-era housing estates dominated by blocks of flats (rich in playgrounds and sports courts). The results suggest that the built environment can influence the number and type of SI in different districts.

Using OpenStreetMap and QGIS, the study maps local places associated with social infrastructure across three district types (historical city centres, socialist-era housing estates, and inner suburban areas) in the five cities. The choice of districts was made after interviews with local geographers. Admittedly, in the post-modern city, there is no homogeneous function that districts have; however, each has a dominant function identified in advance.

The study also introduces a new typology, classifying 50 locations into four groups: mobility, waiting, public spaces, and services, based on the characteristics and functions of the places. This framework supports comparative studies of social infrastructure in international contexts, as very few studies name and categorize these places; however, comparative empirical analysis is crucial to understanding how these places are found in geographical space in different contexts.

Thus, the paper contributes to the existing literature on social infrastructure in two ways: both theoretically and empirically. In the latter case, its significance lies in being the first empirical study from Hungary, where post-socialist urbanistic processes were found. As most empirical studies are from Anglo-Saxon countries, the study addresses a research gap regarding the under-researched spatial focus.

The study has some limitations regarding the small number of districts (5 cities × 3 types of district) and its infrastructural approach, as it examines where these places can be found but does not focus on how they operate as real social infrastructure and contribute to numerous advantageous processes.

Existing literature highlights the importance of social infrastructure, linking it to processes such as fostering social cohesion. It also plays a crucial role in addressing challenges, including loneliness, the erosion of democratic functions, social bubbles, and polarization. At a time when resilient communities are vital for responding to global issues such as climate change, social infrastructure is essential for adaptation