The Socialist Production of Eastern European Space



This chapter examines the way the Romanian and Hungarian socialist regimes re-ordered space by means of architecture. After a short introduction into space as social(ist) product, the chapter analyses the physical and psychological context of Romania’s prefabricated constructs and Hungary’s scattered homesteads and cube houses. By providing a spatial reading of the cityscape of Bucharest and the rural landscape of Hungary, the examination establishes a cultural and political base for the vertical and horizontal categories on screen discussed later in the book.


  1. Becsei, J. (2002). A tanyarendszer jövőbeli alakulására ható tényezők. Magyar Tudomány, 2 [Online]. Accessed 14 Mar 2016.
  2. Bodolai, Z. (1978). The timeless nation: The history, literature, music, art and folklore of the Hungarian nation. Sydney: Hungaria Publishing House.Google Scholar
  3. Burger, A. (2009). The situation of Hungarian agriculture. Paper presented at international scientific conference, May 27–29, Vilnius, Lithuania [Online]. Accessed 1 Aug 2016.
  4. Câmpeanu, P. (Name Witheld, 1986). Birth and death in Romania. New York Review [Online], 33(16). Accessed 13 Apr 2016.
  5. Crowley, D. (2003). Warsaw. London: Reaction Books.Google Scholar
  6. Crowley, D., & Reid, S. (Eds.). (2002). Socialist spaces: Sites of everyday life in the Eastern Bloc. Cornwall: MPG Books.Google Scholar
  7. Czepczynski, M. (2008). Cultural landscapes of post-socialist cities. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  8. Danta, D. (1993). Ceausescu’s Bucharest. Geographical Review, 83(2), 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dimaio, A. J., Jr. (1974). Soviet urban housing: Problems and policies. Westport: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Ditchev, I. (2005). Communist urbanization and conditional citizenship. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 9(3), 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enyedi, G. (1971). Economic geographical problems of the great Hungarian plain (trans. E. Fuhrmann). In S. Béla (Ed.), The changing face of the Great Hungarian Plain (pp. 9–35). Budapest: Akamémia Kiadó.Google Scholar
  12. Erdei, F. (1976). Magyar tanyák [Hungarian scattered homesteads]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
  13. Forgacs, D. (2000). Antonioni: Space, place, sexuality. In M. Konstantarakos (Ed.), Spaces in European cinema (pp. 102–112). Exeter: Intellect Books.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1968[1997]). Of other spaces: Utopias and heterotopias. In N. Leach (Ed.), Rethinking architecture. A reader in cultural theory (pp. 329–358). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  16. Gerasimova, E. (1999). The Soviet communal apartment. In J. Smith (Ed.), Beyond the limits: The concept of space in Russian history and culture. Helsinki: SHS.Google Scholar
  17. Györffy, I. (1987). Magyar falu. Magyar ház [Hungarian village, Hungarian houses]. Budapest: Turul.Google Scholar
  18. Hann, C. M. (1980). Tazlar, a village in Hungary. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kligman, G. (1998). The politics of duplicity: Controlling reproduction in Ceausescu’s Romania. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Lowe, S. (1992). Romania. An introduction. In B. Turner, J. Hegedüs, & I. Tosics (Eds.), The reform of housing in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union (pp. 174–184). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Merrifield, A. (1993). Place and space: A Lefebvrian reconciliation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18(4), 516–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Merrifield, A. (2000). Henri Lefebvre: A socialist in space. In M. Crang & N. Thrift (Eds.), Thinking space (pp. 167–183). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Mieke, M. (2004). The evolution of Agrarian institutions: A comparative study of post-socialist Hungary and Bulgaria. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  26. Molnár, V. (2010). In search of the ideal socialist home in post-Stalinist Hungary: Prefabricated mass housing or do-it-yourself family home? Journal of Design History, 23(1), 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mumford, L. (1961). The city in history. It’s origins, its transformations, and its prospects. Orlando: Harcourt Brace International.Google Scholar
  28. Nagel, T. (1995). Personal rights and public space. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24(2), 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Neill, B. (2009). The political agency of cityscapes: Spatializing governance in Ceausescu’s Bucharest. Journal of Social Archaeology, 9(1), 92–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pásztor, G., & Péter, L. (2009). Urban housing problem in Romania. The legacy of communist block of flats. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Sociologia, 1, 79–100.Google Scholar
  31. Romsics, I. (1999). Hungary in the twentieth century. Budapest: Corvina Books.Google Scholar
  32. Roters, K. (2014). Hungarian cubes. Subversive ornaments in socialism. Chicago: Park Books.Google Scholar
  33. Scurtu, I. (2009). The Romanian revolution of December 1989 in international context. Bucharest: Editura Redactiei Publicatiilor Pentru.Google Scholar
  34. Smiló, D. (2010). A sátortetős kockaház leleplezése. Accessed 23 Mar 2015.
  35. Smith, D. M. (1996). The socialist city. In G. Andrusz, M. Harloe, & I. Szelényi (Eds.), Cities after socialism. Urban and regional change and conflict in post-socialist societies (pp. 70–90). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies. The reassertion of space in critical social theory. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  37. Somogyi, S. (1971). Natural endowments of the Great Hungarian Plain. Studies in geography. Budapest: Akademia.Google Scholar
  38. Sosnovy, T. (1954). The housing problem in the soviet union, Research program on the U.S.S.R (Vol. 8). New York: Edward Brothers, INC.Google Scholar
  39. Szelenyi, I. (1988). Socialist entrepreneurs. Embourgeoisement in rural Hungary. Budapest: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  40. Szenti, T. (1979). A tanya. Hagyományos és átalakuló paraszti élet a hódmezővásárhelyi kopáncsi tanyavilágban [Scattered homestead. The traditional and transforming lives of peasants in the tanya-world of Hódmezővásárhely]. Budapest: Gondolat.Google Scholar
  41. Szerb, A. (1934). Magyar irodalomtörténet [The history of Hungarian literature]. Budapest: Magvető Kiadó.Google Scholar
  42. Tóth, Z. (2010). Melyik ház a „kockaház”? Mit mond a művelt középosztály egy munkásháztípusról? [What is a cube house?]. Korall, 40, 5–44.Google Scholar
  43. Valuch, T. (2004). Changes in the structure and lifestyle of the Hungarian society in the second half of the XXth century. In G. Gyáni, G. Kövér, & T. Valuch (Eds.), Social history of Hungary from the reform era to the end of the twentieth century (pp. 511–621). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wallis, B. C. (1917). The peoples of Hungary: Their work on the land source. Geographical Review, 4(6), 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Watkins, C. (2005). Representations of space, spatial practices and spaces of representation: An application of Lefebvre’s spatial triad. Culture and Organization, 11(3), 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. White, G. W. (2000). Nationalism and territory: Constructing group identity in Southeastern Europe. Lanham/Boulder/New York/Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Babeș-Bolyai UniversityCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations