uzupis gentrification in vilnius (lithuania): the example of · history of the old town of vilnius...

www.ssoar.info

Gentrification in Vilnius (Lithuania): the example ofUzupisStandl, Harald; Krupickaitė, Dovilė

Veröffentlichungsversion / Published VersionZeitschriftenartikel / journal article

Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation:Standl, H., & Krupickaitė, D. (2004). Gentrification in Vilnius (Lithuania): the example of Uzupis. Europa Regional,12.2004(1), 42-51. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-48092-5

Nutzungsbedingungen:Dieser Text wird unter einer Deposit-Lizenz (KeineWeiterverbreitung - keine Bearbeitung) zur Verfügung gestellt.Gewährt wird ein nicht exklusives, nicht übertragbares,persönliches und beschränktes Recht auf Nutzung diesesDokuments. Dieses Dokument ist ausschließlich fürden persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen Gebrauch bestimmt.Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments müssen alleUrheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise auf gesetzlichenSchutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses Dokumentnicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen Siedieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zweckevervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oderanderweitig nutzen.Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie dieNutzungsbedingungen an.

Terms of use:This document is made available under Deposit Licence (NoRedistribution - no modifications). We grant a non-exclusive, non-transferable, individual and limited right to using this document.This document is solely intended for your personal, non-commercial use. All of the copies of this documents must retainall copyright information and other information regarding legalprotection. You are not allowed to alter this document in anyway, to copy it for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit thedocument in public, to perform, distribute or otherwise use thedocument in public.By using this particular document, you accept the above-statedconditions of use.

http://www.ssoar.info

https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-48092-5

EUROPA REGIONAL 12(2004)142

Gentrification in Vilnius (Lithuania) – the example of Užupis

HARALD STANDL and DOVILE KRUPICKAITE

Introduction

“With the fall of the iron curtain andthe economic liberalization that fol-lowed, gentrification has also becomea feature of eastern European cities…” (LEES 2000, p. 390), but in themeantime, not much research hasbeen done to analyse the process, andpublications on this topic are still rare.However, due to the studies prepared,for example by HARDTH, HERLYN andSCHELLER (1996), WEISKE (1996) orHERFERT (2003), the knowledge ofchanges in some East German cities isquite good. The fieldwork for thisresearch-project on Vilnius was donein July and August 2003 with the helpof students at Vilnius University,Dept. of Geography and supervisedby the authors. Approx. 260 house-holds were interviewed in two differ-ent parts of the historical centre ofVilnius (see Map 1), especially in themiddle-age suburb of Užupis (200interviews). The control-area (60 in-terviews) is located in the Old Town,east of Pilies (Castle) street. Thequestions focused on living-conditionsof the inhabitants and on recent socio-economic changes. Due to the factthat each point can not be presentedin detail, this paper will show themain trends occurring in Užupis, withspecific reference to those trends inthe centre of the Old Town of Vilnius,providing that extreme structural dif-ferences can be observed. The maingoal is two-fold: 1) To determine ifgentrification has already started and2) to analyse what stage of develop-ment has been achieved in restructur-ing the historical part of the Lithua-nian capital twelve years after Lithua-nia gained independence from theSoviet Union.

History of the Old Town of Vilnius

The name of Vilnius was first men-tioned in 1323 in a letter written byGediminas, the Grand Duke of Lithua-nia, addressed to European cities and

sovereignties, inviting merchants, crafts-men and representatives of the Catho-lic Church to Vilnius, to build up atown next to his newly founded castle.In fact, the number of inhabitants inVilnius increased rapidly, especiallyafter the final defeat of the Livonian(German) Order in 1410, which led tothe long-lasting political stability andrise of Lithuania as a leading power inEastern Europe. Vilnius was its capital

until the merger of Lithuania andPoland in 1569. “After the Great Fire of1471 new streets were built and in1503 - 1522 a five gate defence wallwas erected, enclosing the most dense-ly populated part of the city andprotecting it from possible Tartar inva-sions.” (Vilnius Old Town Revitalisa-tion … 2003, p. 5). The area south ofthe Vilnia and Neris confluence cov-ered 300 ha. In 1579, the Vilnius

:��

;��

"$��# !��

7��

!!��

=��%�>��?��7�� (-�"�

� ��* ��-��#5��9��+��5��'��$%�&�'�(��

1�0�2#@��#��3��!/��#��#�*�� !��!"$��!�>*��!�� ?

'#��0��9�#��#��0��5��+��'#��0��9�#��1�0�2#@��>�#�*��9��#��0?,��!�#�� #��!

&�6��

1�0�2#@�� #*��0�#�"$��!

Map 1: Location of the Old Town of Vilnius and of UžupisSource: Vilnius Old Town Revitalisation... 2003

. .

43

University was established, which stilldominates the northern part of theOld Town (west of Pilies street). Al-though Vilnius had lost its politicalpower to Warsaw, it had developedinto a cultural centre of the largeMiddle and North European Region,famous for its religious tolerance anddiversity. Besides the community ofthe Catholic Church (and the JesuitOrder), the Jewish community wasmost active. At the end of the 19thcentury, approx. 100 synagogues andreligious schools existed in Vilne (theJiddish name for Vilnius). The townwas first called “The Jerusalem of theNorth” by Napoleon, as the legendsays, on his campaign to Russia. Themajority of inhabitants spoke Polishand lived in quite poor circumstances.During the 18th century, the small classof rich aristocrats donated money forerecting impressive churches, built inBaroque style. After the third and lastdivision of the Lithuanian-Polish statein 1795, the majority of Lithuania wentto Russia and Vilnius became a prov-ince-centre ruled by a General Gover-nor. Shortly thereafter (in 1799 - 1805),the defence wall and its gates weredestroyed. But the most harmful peri-od for the town was during World WarII. Under Nazi-German occupation,two large ghettos were established andsubsequently destroyed in 1943 when,during the Holocaust, their inhabitantswere killed in the surrounding forests.The genocide served to drasticallyinfluence the urban structure of theOld Town. After the occupation by theSoviet army and the integration ofLithuania into the USSR, Vilnius be-came the capital of a newly createdSoviet Republic. But due to the factthat the Jewish community had beenextinguished and many Polish inhabit-ants had taken flight, the majority ofthe buildings stood empty at the endof World War II. The area of theformer ghettos was cleared from itsburnt down ruins and partly built upinto a modern (or a-historic) function-al style. Socio-economically weak indi-viduals from the surroundings of Vilniusand even from Belorussia and Russiamoved into the remaining houses inthe Old Town, which contributed to itslong lasting period of decline. Al-though three separate plans for reno-vating the Old Town were draftedduring the Soviet Period (in 1958 -

1959, 1972 - 1974 and 1988 - 1992),only small amounts of money wereinvested for repairs such as patchingroofs and walls or repairing windowsand doors. In the beginning of the1990s, most of the buildings in the OldTown of Vilnius, which had beennationalized or expropriated duringSoviet time, were in deplorable sani-tary condition or even uninhabitable.

What happened to the real estatein 1991, the year of national indepen-dence? Although a restitution law waspassed on June 18, giving thoseindividuals who had up-to-date Lithua-nian nationality and a permanentresidency the chance to lay appropri-ate claims to regain illegitimately losttitles, less than 200 residential build-ings were returned to their formerowners in Vilnius (STANDL 2002). Inmost cases, only various churchescould gain beneficence from this kindof restitution of property rights. Fur-thermore, the Lithuanian legislationinvoked extensive exceptions as wellas requirements in order to providerestitution by national compensatorypayments. But most of the buildingsunderwent the so-called ‘Mass Privati-sation’, under the “Law on Privatisa-tion of Flats” (May 28, 1991). In thecourse of this extremely acceleratedprivatisation process the past tenantswere shifted into an unprecedentedstate of legal affairs. So-called ‘Invest-ment Cheques’, distributed for free tothe inhabitants of Lithuania by thestate, could be used to acquire newdwellings at a relatively inexpensiveprice. After privatisation, the newowners were then allowed completefreedom to decide on the use of theirnew dwelling, including options torent, lease or even resell the dwelling.

This form of mass privatisation offormer state property was accom-plished in Lithuania quickly andconsistently. As a result, a rapidlygrowing real estate market emerged(STANDL 2003). But still, the marketfor leasing flats and houses in Vilnius(and in Lithuania overall) was notsignificant. In fact, only a few foreigncompanies rented apartments for theiremployees. The buildings which werenot denationalised, usually consistingof uninhabited or otherwise unusablehouses in the Old Town of Vilnius,remained in possession of the munic-ipality. Although the structural condi-

tion of these buildings was often inextreme disrepair, they neverthelessoften stood under protection as histor-ical monuments or ensembles andcould not be torn down. Hence, at thebeginning of 1996 nearly 120 buildingsremained unused and in disrepair inthe Old Town, (i. e. without windows,doors or a waterproof roof). In themeantime, a large number could berenovated (partly by using foreignloans) under supervision of the mu-nicipality and sold afterwards to in-vestors. As a result, the central part ofthe Old Town (around Pilies street asthe main N-S-axis) underwent a fasteconomic revitalisation during themid 1990s (STANDL 2002, 2003), boost-ed by a growing number of interna-tional tourists visiting the impressivechurches and profound buildings withtheir magnificent courtyards.

Some special aspects of the medievalsuburb Užupis

Užupis is the oldest suburb of Vilnius,located on a hill east of the (formerly)walled Old Town. The picturesquerelief was formed by a meandering ofthe small river called Vilnia. Histori-ans believe that Užupis had alreadyexisted as a settlement long ago, butthe suburb was first mentioned in the15th century in a foundation-docu-ment of a monastery. The speciallocation of Užupis, separated from thelower Old Town by the river, butconnected by two, and later, threebridges leading to two different towngates, resulted in a relatively differentsocio-economic development in aunique (sub-)urban structure. The mainstreet-axis (in direction W-E), todayknown as Užupio und Polocko street,was a part of an important route as farback as the middle-ages, connectingVilnius with famous Russian trade-centres like Vitebsk und Polotsk.Since the 17th century, the upper partof this main street in Užupis belongedto the Russian Orthodox Church.Many clerical officials lived there instone buildings. The eastern banks ofthe Vilnia were settled by craftsmenwho used the water power for produc-tion of wooden, iron and leathergoods. They usually lived in smallwooden houses, which remain partlystanding until now.

During the end of the 19th and thebeginning of the 20th century, rich


inhabitants of Vilnius recognizedUžupis as an attractive place to livewith its beautiful views of the OldTown, especially from the northernslope. They erected villas mainly alongUžupio street, where a tramway-linewas established to connect the suburbwith the centre of the city. But still thisquarter was more socio-economicallyseparated from, rather than integratedwith the rest of the town.

This very special infrastructure ofUžupis became even more diversifiedwith the opening of the new buildingfor the Academy of Fine Arts in 1981.Hundreds of students graduated fromthis academy, and many were fascinat-ed with Užupis, both by the liberalatmosphere and by the opportunity tooccupy empty houses waiting forthem. Thus, they were the first en-trants in the beginning process ofgentrification. Many others followedtheir example and moved to Užupis,intensively changing the social struc-ture of the quarter.

The influence and results of the“Vilnius Old Town RevitalisationProgram”

After the historic city centre of Vilniuswas included into the UNESCO WorldHeritage List in December 1994, therecame an increase in international andnational political pressure on localauthorities to renew and revitalise theOld Town. In 1995, the Republic ofLithuania – in the name of the City ofVilnius – successfully appealed to theInternational Bank for Reconstruc-tion and Development (IBRD) fortechnical and financial assistance toprepare the urgently needed “VilniusOld Town Revitalisation Strategy”. In1995 and 1996 an international groupof Danish, Scottish and Lithuanianexperts, supported by the Norwegianand Danish government as well as bythe Edinburgh Old Town RenewalTrust, worked on this planning docu-ment, covering aspects like architec-tural conservation, urban develop-ment and socio-economic upgrading.The strategy was approved by theVilnius City Council in September1996 and in 1997 by the Governmentof the Republic of Lithuania.

The following year, in 1998, theCity of Vilnius established the Vilnius“Old Town Renewal Agency” (OTRA)and commissioned it with the task of

preparing annual programs for OldTown revitalisation like the develop-ment of infrastructure which includedthe repair of street lights, and alsoallocated subsidies to renew thefaçades and roofs of Old Town build-ings. One of the main problemscaused by mass-privatisation of flatsin 1991 and 1992 was the fact that thelegislature (until July 2001) had notmanaged to address the questions ofwho was to be financially and effec-tively responsible for executing re-pairs on the façades and roofs of themulti-family-buildings. Due to thatomission, the owners and inhabitantsof the private houses were not verymotivated in spending money onrepairing the façades of their build-ings. As a result, most of the houses inthe Old Town of Vilnius exhibitedunsightly staircases, roofs and cellarswhich were in very bad disrepair.However, in order to benefit from thesubsidies, private homeowners had tosign partnership agreements withOTRA, stating that they would in-deed invest the money in the renova-tion of their homes along with therestoration of the rest of the building.This method proved to be a successfulvehicle in encouraging the owners offlats to spend money on repairing thewhole building, instead of executingrepairs only on their own apartments.The results achieved since 1998 aresummarised in the “Old Town Revital-isation Programme … 2003”. Themajority of public money invested(1999: 22 Mio. LTL or 5.5 Mio US $;2000 - 2002: Approx. 4 Mio. LTL or1,160 Mio. EURO per year) wasallocated from the State budget. Thestrategy was to primarily upgrade themost frequented part of Vilnius’ OldTown, especially along the touristroutes and later to upgrade theperiphery of the town to make it moreattractive. In the year 2000, therenovations in Užupis commenced(see below).

The philosophy of the pioneers andthe creation of a new image:“The Free Republic of Užupis” and“The Montmartre of Vilnius”

In the beginning of the 1990s, artists,who liked to live here already beforeWorld War II, (re-)discovered Užupis.One of them was Mr. Romas Lileikis,the recent “President” of the “Repub-

lic of Užupis”, which was founded in1998. Looking for “authenticity”,“peace” and “nature”, he was one ofthe first newcomers in an urban areathat had an extremely bad reputation.Only “social outsiders” were livingthere at that time, which made it “thehighest and lowest place in Vilnius”(high in topography and low insociety), with a community of inhabit-ants “waiting for changes”. But theself-defined role of an artist likeRomas was not a missionary one, butrather of self-realization.

After he was unlucky in finding ahouse on the top of the hill, Mr.Lileikis decided to live near the riverVilnia as a symbol of the “circle ofnature” of “constancy and change”,which also “creates an island” insidethe urban space. Anyway it was cheapto live in Užupis, and the pioneers hadno money to expend. Thus, manyfollowed Romas’ example and simplyoccupied empty houses, mainly alongthe romantic river, located near theAcademy of Fine Arts (see Map 2).The reaction of the “autochthonic”people at first was quite reserved, atbest, and sometimes even aggressive,at worst. “They were afraid that wewere going to destroy their world, andsome of them even attacked me withknives. My car was broken up severaltimes by vandals, but due to the factthat I constantly spoke to my neigh-bours in Russian, I was able to createan atmosphere of trust and tolerance.Anyway, I tried to integrate myself intheir society” (Romas Lileikis).

But the most helpful aspect in Mr.Lileikis eyes was the fact that thepeople of Užupis recognized that theprices for flats in Užupis were increas-ing. Selling an apartment or a housecould be a profitable deal, especiallyfor an impoverished homeowner. Onthe other hand, a buyer could make asmall fortune in finding a seller, whowas extremely short of money orunable to realize the market value ofhis flat. (Until now, there are rumoursthat alcoholics lost their home forsome bottles of vodka to “cleverguys”).

During the second half of the 1990san alternative community grew andincreasingly diversified when newgroups of different lifestyles, such as ayouth subculture known as “punks”,invaded.

45

Cultural events were celebrated inUžupis to attract visitors from otherparts of town, as potential buyers ofart, presented in small exhibitions.The more guests came, the more therewas the need to be better organizedfor such events and festivals. In 1998,a group of artists birthed an idea tobuild a new monument in the mainsquare, replacing a long lost sculpturerelief of St. Mary. They also created aconstitution for a free “Republic ofUžupis” to show a philosophy to therest of the world that there is an“island of peace and freedom foreverybody”. Although most paragraphsin this constitution were largely writ-ten in jest it nevertheless includedmany human rights (and those ofanimals). To collect money for thenew monument, the “Statue of anangel”, designed by a local artist, themembers of Užupis “parliament” cel-ebrated the first “Day of Indepen-dence” on April 1, 1998. This was alsothe day, when the “constitution” wasofficially declaimed. To this day, aprocession still moves through thestreets of “the Republic” every yearon April 1, integrating many differentgroups of participants from pupils of

local schools and inhabitants of Užupisto guests from other parts of the town.During the day of celebration open-air concerts and films are presentedand the artists of the town dressoutlandishly. In April 1, 2003, the“Republic of Užupis” symbolicaljoined the European Union and the“Užupis-EURO” was printed, whichcould be exchanged at the “Border-Checkpoints”. Guests were able to buybeer using only the new kind ofcurrency. The previous year, the mon-ument of “The Angel” made ofChinese marble, was unveiled as wellas a stone-plate with the inscription of

the constitution-text in Lithuanianand English. In the meantime, theinformal parliament of Užupis alsointroduced a calendar for all theevents celebrated during the year,marking another step in formalizingthe low-budget and non-profit mar-keting of “The Republic of Užupis”(Photo 1).

The “Republic” even has somehonorary freemen. The most popularof them is the Dalai Lama, whovisited Vilnius in June 2001 andsupported the idea of a peacefulUžupis by accepting the title. The“Republic’s” parliament and cultural

�

��

��

��

�

�

� �

��

� �

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

��

�

��

��

� � � �

�

,�� @�� .��"��%�� 0

,��#�)��,��

7#�# ;#�!��

;� � �

� �

%��&

��

"$��#�!��

��*�� /�5�!��)

,��!��!

-��H%�&�!��%�7� &��!��5��%�/� �� @9��%�8#��9%�-��0�� #��/06��!��5��5��0��!!��%�'��9��#��7� �� !��6� ��0��0� ��#�>! �##�%�� 9%��#!�#�� %��#!��?-#*��9�#�� 0��*!�>*��9�.#��6��!?,�! ��#�!

��*�� >��

+��'��#�#*�@I!�-�� >�#!!�!!�#��#��'��#��!!��-��#�� #**��9?

J##0!�#��0�!�#��#��*��#��*�#�� >!��#��9%��*� 9?

&��

2�K��!

/��5��9%�/��L��!%�'##;!�#�

:�#!;

� �� *

-�#!�0�#��%��#6��#��#��0�� #�!�� #�

�

�

�

�

��

��'��0��5��

"$��!�>3��!?

��'�!��*��0�&�!�� 1�� %�3��!��+��0�-��#5��9��+��5��'��$%�&�'�(��

Map 2: Location of services and retail trade outlets in Užupis (August 2003)Source: Author’s field work

Photo 1: The Angel ofUžupis, a monumentdesigned by a local artist,erected in 2002. At thesame time, the main road(Užupio St.) and also thefaçades of the surroundingbuildings were paintedwith the support of theVilnius Old TownRenovation Agency(OTRA). In the quarter,many art galleries, cafésand restaurants wereopened recently.Photo: STANDL 2003


centre is a pub on Užupio street,located at the entrance to Užupis,next to the bridge over the Vilnia in aneighbourhood containing approx. adozen ateliers. The (mainly young)artists had occupied most of thesebuildings illegally in 1997/1998. Aftera difficult fight with the municipality,they were recently successful in gain-ing official leasing contracts, limitedto a period of five years. Many of theartists not only work here, but alsolive an alternative lifestyle. This highconcentration of ateliers and thenewly opened art-galleries on Užupiostreet (next to the “Angel”) has led toa new image of this quarter, as the“The Montmartre of Vilnius”. Thistitle of honour might sound a bit tooambitious, but the community ofartists keeps informal contacts withcolleagues in Paris.

Since Užupis was intensively pro-moted by the artists, the publicopinion towards this place shiftedfrom “dirty”, “socially low”, “very(Belo-)Russian” and “full of alcohol-ics” to “quite interesting” and “charm-ing”. The middle class and even somerich, young businessmen or nationalTV stars found it “chique” to move tothis quarter. Thus, a second wave ofintruders, now real gentrifiers, startedto flow into Užupis since 1998.

The main motives of the new inhabi-tants to move to Užupis

A third of all households in Užupishave moved there since 1991, the yearof independence from the SovietUnion. In the reference-area of theOld Town, even 40 % are new inhab-itants. On the other hand, 25 % of thepeople interviewed in Užupis havelived there at least 40 years, and 50 %of the total number of householdshave existed there more than 20 years.That is, the structure of inhabitantswas quite stable before the “intruders”started to “conquer” this urban area.The recent trend in moving to Užupis

– besides some first pioneers like Mr.Lileikis – started in 1995 and hasaccelerated since 1998. Most of thenew inhabitants (80 %) came fromother parts of Vilnius (25 % fromsuburbs dominated by mass-housing),the rest mainly from other Lithuaniantowns, which means the vast majorityalready had an urban background. Themain reasons for leaving their formerplace of residence included “unattrac-tiveness of the old flat” (37 %),“private motives” (30 %), and reasonsconnected to the job (9 %).

The newcomers chose Užupis be-cause of its special “spirit” (29 %) andquality of living (28 %), while morethan half of the new migrants into theOld Town moved to this area becauseof its unique atmosphere. As men-tioned above, the vast majority ofhouseholds in Vilnius live on theirown property (in Užupis 88 % and inthe Old Town up to 96 %). In Užupis,22 % of all newcomers rent their flats,approx. half of them from the munic-ipality or from their employers. Dis-similarities between the two areasstudied can be found concerning theway the new inhabitants found theirdwellings. Whereas in the Old Town40 % of all the flats were transferredsince 1991 via real-estate agents, inUžupis this was of minor relevance(9 %). Here, many of the flats werefound through advertisements in localnewspapers (28 %) or through friends(28 % as well). This result is asignificant sign that the inhabited areaof Užupis is still trailing in itsdevelopment towards mass-gentrifica-tion. Professional real-estate agentsare not as active there as they are inthe Old Town, where most of theirincome is generated by the office-market.

The characteristics of dwellings

The fact that the types of buildings inUžupis are a bit smaller than in theOld Town, but contain a higher

amount of one or two-family-houses isrevealed by the answers of thoseinterviewed. One quarter of the newhouseholds in Užupis live in thesekinds of buildings (double the amountof the older households!), but al-though the multi-family-buildings dom-inate in the Old Town (97 %), theaverage housing space is a bit higher(78 sq meter versus 71 sq meter) thanin Užupis.

Table 1 shows the number of flatssold in Užupis and average prices(officially) achieved in these transac-tions between the years 1998 and2003. In this period, the prices for realestate rose by more than 70 %, withthe exception of the years 1998 and2000, when due to a small economiccrises in Lithuania, the number ofapartments sold sank compared to theprevious year. In 2003, the maximumprice achieved per square meter was4,831 LTL (or 1,400 Euro), thecheapest flats were available for only825 LTL (approx. 240 Euro) per sqmeter.

The extreme variation in dwellingcosts arises from the considerablerange of quality. One evident indica-tor for the quality of a flat is the kindof heating provided. In Užupis, nearlyhalf the dwellings (46 %) are heatedwith wood or coal in old stoves. Inthose households existing before 1991,up to 58 % still use this kind ofheating. In new households, we canfind different kind of heating systems,approx. half of them traditional ones(24 % wood or coal; 20 % singlestoves heated with oil) and the re-maining half of them modern ones(20 % central heating with oil or gas,15 % electric oven, and only 12 % ofthe households is connected to thecentral heating-plants built up duringSoviet time); a small percentage (9 %)uses mixed systems. In the referencearea in the Old Town, the situation ismuch better, due to the fact thatnearly 40 % of all buildings is sup-

Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 total

Number sold 117 68 41 62 78 79 445

Average price per sq meter (LTL) 1,261 1,837 1,742 1,794 1,82 2,158 1,725

Min. price per sq meter (LTL) 379 365 346 619 609 825 –

Max. price per sq meter (LTL) 3,201 3,026 3,942 4,754 4,132 4,831 –

Tab. 1: Number of flats sold in Užupis and average price achieved per square meter (1998 - 2003)Source: Data calculation by Register of Land Property, VilniusAnnotation: While the Lithuanian currency (LTL = Lithuanian Litas) was directly connected to the US $ until 2001 (1 US $ = 4 LTL), the exchange-rate since Jan. 1,2002 is fixed to the Euro (1 € = 3,4528 LTL).

47

plied with steam from small powerplants (built before 1991), and thatone third of all the buildings nowcome equipped with modern centralheating systems.

In general, the state of the overallbuildings can differ considerably fromthe condition of the individual flats(see the data in Fig. 1 and 2 forUžupis). In total, 25 % of all the flatswere appraised as “very good” or“good” condition, but only 12 %

received the same appraisal regardingthe dwelling as a whole. In theopinion of the inhabitants the condi-tion of the whole house is at least“bad” (34 %) or even “very bad”(17 %). In the reference-area of theOld Town, the situation isn’t muchbetter (Photos 2 - 4).

As mentioned above, mass-privati-sation of flats led to a very chaotic

situation concerning the responsibilityfor the public parts of the buildings(cellars, stairs, façades and roofs). Thisis not exclusive to the two studiedurban areas, but is a general problemin Lithuania and many other eastEuropean countries. Private expendi-tures for improvements are usuallyonly invested inside the flats. The restof the building remained in as-is

'��

��+��0�� !��&�'�(��

6��9� �0

�0

�6��5�

5##0

6��9�5##0

�

��

��

)�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

2#�� 1�0�#�!��#�0!M

8�@�#�!��#�0!

<��44�

"$��!�>��?�� A��#��

��+��0�� !��&�'�(��

6��9� �0

�0

�6��5�

5##0

6��9�5##0

�

��

��

)�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

2#�� 1�0�#�!��#�0!M

8�@�#�!��#�0!

<��44�

'��

"$��!�>��?��%�� A��#��

Fig. 1: State of flats in UžupisSource: Authors’data (July 2003)

Fig. 2: State of dwelling-houses inUžupisSource: Author’s data (July 2003)

Photo 2: Manyhouses in Užupisare still indeplorableconditions.Photo: STANDL 2003

Photo 3: Dozensof buildings areonly uninhabitableruins.Photo: STANDL 2003

Photo 4: Towardsthe end of the1990s students andgraduates of theAcademy of FineArts squattedempty houses nearthe river Vilnia,where they live andwork – a situationthat has now beenlegalised. Thephoto shows afilm-crew during ashooting inside anatelier.Photo: STANDL 2003


condition, until the municipality de-cided to improve the situation (inVilnius via public-private-partner-ships). Only since July 1, 2001, theresponsibility for dwelling houses isregulated by a new national law.

The distinctions regarding the qual-ity of dwellings are significant be-tween pre-existing households andmore recently created ones (whomoved in since 1991, Fig. 1). The stateof flats inhabited by newcomers ismuch better; nearly half of them arein “good” (32 %) or “very good”condition (16 %), but those of pre-existing households are seldom rated“very good” (1 %) and only rarely“good” (13 %). Not surprisingly, onlyminor differences of opinion existconcerning the conditions of the build-ing as a whole (Fig. 2). Generally, allthe inhabitants in Užupis argued inunison that the main things in urgentneed of renovations are roofs (50 %)and façades (48 %), whereas staircas-es (43 %) are in slightly better condi-tion, where new households are con-cerned (see Tab. 2). The total negativeranking is followed by an interiorrating for windows (42 %), floors(41 %), the walls and ceilings (34 %),water-pipes (also 34 %), electricitymains (21 %), heating-systems (18 %)and the bathrooms/lavatories (18 %).But although things in general areworse in old households, the situationin the new households is far frombeing called perfect, because duringthe last 10 years, only minor renova-tions were done there, too, as two outof three were not able to modernize at

all (total average: 78 %; old house-holds: 83 %).

In light of this statistic, is it safe tosay “gentrifcation” in Užupis is under-way? Not, if we look at the status ofdisrepair in the city’s dwellings. Butthis statistic is not crucial in measur-ing the intensity of gentrification,especially in east-European cities,where the process of transition fromplanned to market economy has re-sulted in extreme loss of savings dueto high inflation in the first half of the1990s and to the lowered income ofthe middleclass. So, lack of privatecapital to invest in modernizing theflats is still quite prevalent in mosthouseholds. For that reason, we haveto look at other kind of socio-economic indicators to uncover thehidden distinctions between old in-habitants and newcomers.

Socio-economic indicators

In western urban societies, the num-ber of single-households is constantlygrowing, especially in gentrified areas,but not in Užupis, where only 17 % ofall households are single (newcomers:16 %). In contrast, the typical struc-ture of the new households is charac-terized by families with one child(27 %) or two children (21 %). Theaverage age for the head of a house-hold is about 44 years old, as opposedto only 33 years old in new house-holds, i. e. 17 years less than in oldhouseholds (50 years). Even if wecompare these results with the aver-age length of stay in Užupis, the maintrend is evident: The newcomers are

much younger than the autochthonicpopulation, with a higher portion ofunmarried adults (28 % versus 20 %within the “old household” group) butalso with a much higher amount ofmarried couples (66 % versus 48 %),while 19 % of all heads of householdsare widowed (none in the new ones).

One of the most important featuresto be studied in a system of potentialsocial transformation is the level ofeducation. Looking at the intensity ofchanges since 1991 (Fig. 3), we canjudge that at least in this aspect, thereis little doubt that gentrification hastaken place in Užupis, because nearlytwo out of three heads of “newhouseholds” (65 %) have attained auniversity degree (versus only 12 % ofheads of “old households”) (Tab. 3).The same processes of social upgrad-ing we observed from former studieson gentrification are occurring here,too. The amount of well educated andhigh-ranking employees living in thegentrified area is growing, as well asthose of independent businessmenand artists. The latter are mainly earlyintruders, leading to a very mixedsociety in which we can also findunemployed persons (even in newhouseholds), reflecting the ongoingstressed economic situation in Lithua-nia. Nearly 60 % of all the oldhouseholds don’t own a vehicle (newones: 24%) therefore rendering them

Needs renovation … Total average Old households New households

(%) (%) (%)

Roof 50 48 57

Façades 49 48 52

Staircases 43 50 32

Windows 42 48 32

Floors 41 51 25

Walls and ceilings 34 41 22

Water-pipes 34 39 27

Electricity mains 21 20 22

Heating-system 18 21 7

Bathroom/lavatory 18 26 3

Cellar 17 22 9

Isolation of the house 16 20 9

Others 15 15 15

Tab. 2: Things in buildings or inside flats, which need urgent renovation in Užupis(n = 187; more than one aspect could be named)Source: Author’s data, collected in July 2003

'��

��+��0�� !��&�'�(��

"��6��!��90�5��

��5�! �##��K�*

+� #�0��9

7��*��9

�

��

��

)�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

2#�� 1�0�#�!��#�0!M

8�@�#�!��#�0!

<��44�

"$��!�>��?=�*��%�� %��%�� A��#��

Fig.3: Level of education of household-heads in UžupisSource: Authors’data (July 2003)

49

mostly confined to their homes (Pho-tos 5 and 6).

Although the distances to workplaces (or schools, universities etc.)are very brief for most members ofnew households (average between3,5 km to 2,5 km for the adults and2,0 km for the kids), 40 % use auto-mobiles, while only 33 % walk and25 % use public transportation. Mem-bers of old households primarily takethe local busses (41 %) or walk(38 %), and only a minor portion(20 %) use a vehicle. Mostly, newcom-ers choose Užupis (or the Old Townarea), because it is close to the work

place in the central business district ofVilnius where 32 % of them areemployed in office-type jobs.

The (new) inhabitants’ attitudetowards the residential area

Newcomers feel a measure of solidar-ity towards Užupis as follows: “Verystrong” (10 %) or “strong” (40 %).The emotional ties of those towardstheir community who have lived inUžupis for a longer time is weaker:“Very strong” (also 10 %) and “strong”(32 %). On both sides, 44 % areindifferent towards this aspect. Due tothe fact that the older households are,

in general, much less mobile, 58 % ofthis group can hardly imagine movingaway from here, and 15% would do soonly under cogent circumstances. How-ever although new households aremore flexible, it is likely that half ofthem will stay in Užupis (32 %) oronly change their living situationunder forced circumstances (19 %).

Concerning the ranking of desir-able features in Užupis by its inhabit-ants (Tab. 4), we can once againobserve some differences between thegroup of old inhabitants and that ofnewcomers. For new households, thecentral location of the living area is ofgreat importance (49 %) as opposedto old households (36 %). The lattergroup prefers a short distance be-tween their home and other locations,such as the work place (34 % versus17 %). Nature and environmental as-pects are nearly of equal significance,while every fourth newcomer pointedout that the special spirit (image) ofUžupis is of great importance for him/her, as well as peace and silence(29 %) and the architectural style ofthe buildings (21 %) located there.

An indication that the socio-eco-nomic gap between old inhabitantsand newcomers also influences themutual opinion is derived from theanswers given to the question regard-ing what the interviewees dislike inUžupis. The most important aspectscomplained about by new inhabitantswere the presence of “unsocial peo-ple” and “alcoholics” (27 %) and thefact that there are still too many ruinsand a bad infrastructure (24 %)(Tab. 5). On the other hand, thosepeople who live here for a longer timeare unhappy because of an intensifiedtraffic and a lack of parking places inthe streets, both problems of growingimportance to those who had spent along time in quietness before the mid1990s. At any rate, this group alsorecognizes the positive changes thathave occured, especially during thelast five years (Tab. 6): Very often oldinhabitants stress the fact that streetswere improved (54 %) and façades orcomplete houses renovated (45 %).Two out of ten (mainly young people)are also happy about the opening ofnew cafés, pubs and restaurants, whichwere previously absent. A featurewhich is also worth mentioning for thegentrifiers is the positive changes in

Profession Total average Old households New households

(%) (%) (%)

Worker 21 27 9

Employee/Clerk 19 14 28Official 10 11 9

Independent businessman/Entrepreneur 6 2 14Independent craftsman 2 1 3

Artist 4 0 12

Retired / Pensioner 18 27 3

Student / In education 7 6 8

Unemployed 13 12 14Total 100 100 100

Tab. 3: Household-heads’ professional status in Užupis (n = 187)Source: Author’s data, collected in July 2003

Photo 5: Newinhabitants of Užupis infront of a modernsupermarket. Thegentrifiers are mainlyyoung middle-classfamilies with children.In general, thehousehold heads arewell educated and holdwell-paid “white-collar”jobs in the nearbycentral business district.Photo: STANDL 2003

Photo 6: The oldwoman, born inBelorussia, is anexample of the“autochthonous” people.She moved to Užupis inthe early 1950s, workedin one of the factoriesnear the river, neverlearned the Lithuanianlanguage, and is nowforced to live on anextremely small pensionin a rundown building.Photo: STANDL 2003


Aspects Old households New households

(%) (%)

Mr. Zuokas, the mayor of Vilnius 34 26

The (new) image/status of Užupis/Tourists 8 26

The inhabitants of Uzupis themselves 8 19

Rich owners of real estate/Investors 5 12

Municipality and its administration 6 7

Government, UNESCO 5 1

the social structure imported by them-selves.

When asked, who is responsible forthe positive changes, both groups of

inhabitants name the prominent Mr.Arturos Zuokas, who has been Mayorof Vilnius since November 2000.(Tab. 7). This young (born in 1968)

and very well educated journalistwent into private business in 1994,first as general franchiser of “UnitedColours of Benetton” for Lithuaniaand in two years later also forMcDonald’s. He and his wife current-ly run more than half a dozen joint-venture companies, mainly dealingwith the import of goods. In order toconcentrate their offices at one placeand to occupy one of the mostexciting views over the Old Town, Mr.Zuokas purchased a few houses onthe upper part of Užupio street, andinvested a lot of money in renewingthe building-complex for his ownpurposes. Today, many people beliefthat the complete renovation of themain street (Užupio) in 2001 wasinfluenced by his political decisions,as well as the fact that many housesalong this street were integrated intothe Vilnius Old Town RevitalisationProgramme. However, public opinionalso says that the presence of Mr.Zuokas can also bring disadvantagesfor Užupis, as well, in that any publicinvestment in the quarter is undervery intense observation of the massmedia. As a result, the Mayor has tokeep his distance from Užupis inorder not to be blamed for publicsponsorship. However, it is obviousthat may inhabitants of the quarteradmire his local politics, although heand his wife are not very muchintegrated into the community Užupis.Like Mr. Zuokas, many other famousLithuanians (TV-stars and actors)chose this quarter as their new resi-dential area. Not surprisingly, theinvaders also take credit for their ownpositive role (19 %) and the fact thatthe changes in the image and status ofUžupis, which also pushed tourism,affected the whole area in a positiveway. A large majority (80 %) ofpeople living there did not name anynegative trend to be observed duringthe past five years, and those that didmainly spoke about the traffic prob-lems (12 %) mentioned above.

New economic activities

One indication of gentrification is theupgrading of private service activities,following the new customers whopreviously moved in the area before.This process happened in Užupis aswell. While most small shops had beenclosed during Soviet period, many


(%) (%)

The central location of Užupis 36 49

The short distance to other locations 34 17

The nature 25 28

The whole environment 25 20

The spirit/image of Užupis 12 24

The people living here 17 15

The silence 11 29

The architecture 11 21

The good traffic connections 9 8

Tab. 4: The main aspects liked in Užupis by the inhabitants(n = 187; more than one aspect could be named)Source: Author’s data, collected in July 2003Note: Only 8,5 % of all households named no positive aspect at all.


(%) (%)

Unsocial inhabitants; alcoholics 16 27

Ruins and bad infrastructure 15 24

Intensive traffic/Missing parking places 22 11

Bad or less work done by the municipality 12 9

Neighbours in general 6 11

Too much noise 8 9

Changes Old households New households

(%) (%)

Renovation of streets 54 38

Renovation of facades/houses 45 49

Improvements in the technical infrastructure 12 25

New shops and cafés 18 22

Changes in the structure of inhabitants 4 16

Angel of Užupis 13 4

Tab. 6: Positive changes in Užupis during the last five years(n = 187; more than one aspect could be named)Source: Author’s data, collected in July 2003Note: 27 % of all households named no positive changes.

Tab. 5: The main aspects disliked in Užupis by the inhabitants(n = 187; more than one aspect could be named)Source: Author’s data, collected in July 2003Note: More than 36 % of all households named no negative aspect at all.

Tab. 7: Who is responsible for the positive changes in Užupis during the last fiveyears?(n = 187; more than one aspect could be named)Source: Author’s data, collected in July 2003Note: 42 % of all interviewed persons were not able to find an answer to this question

51

new ones opened here, particularlysince 1998. Even one of the wellknown supermarket chain (“IKI”)located an outlet recently on thecorner of Užupio and Paupio street.In the summer of 2003, eight cafésand restaurants could be found alongthe main street axis (see Map 2),creating an active night live, andattracting dinks and yuppies fromVilnius as well as international tour-ists. The latter ones are also theeconomic basis for five art galleries,exhibiting pictures and sculptures oflocal artists, which also can be foundin the numerous ateliers, most of themintegrated in the artists’ flats. Evenmore important in quantity are theprivate offices, where professionalservices such as lawyers and notaries(4), one architect and four marketingagents are attempting to stay inbusiness. The most intensive concen-tration of enterprise offices can befound in Užupio street 30, where Mr.Zuokas and his wife are running theircompanies (Map 2). Some of therooms are also rented by other enter-prises. It is to be expected that thetrend towards opening new serviceactivities in that area will continue.

Summary

LEES (2000, p. 397) is definitelycorrect in her assessment that: “Gen-trification is not the same everywhere.Of course there are generalizablefeatures, both internationally and with-in single cities, but there are alsomany important specificities that areequally important in any analysis ofgentrification …” Comparing the gen-eral phases of gentrification in livingareas designed by FRIEDRICHS (1996, p.19) with those in Užupis, manyconvergent trends are to be observed,along with many divergent aspects (setoff in italic letters).

Since 1991, when Lithuania wonback its independence from the formerSoviet Union, the changes in Užupiscan be grouped into two periods:Phase 1: Beginning of the 1990s up tothe mid 1990s• Only few households, most of them

singles or without children, aremoving in

• Pioneers are artists• They actually wanted to live amongst

ethnic minorities• A high level of empty flats and run-

down buildings• Low rents and prices for real estate• People moving in and buying charm-

ing, but run-down houses cheaply• Some buildings were just occupied• Retarded and inadequate renovation

of the houses (“sweat equality invest-ment”), because of the pioneers havea lack of capital even to buy thematerials for repairing

• Changes are hardly recognised bythe public

• Changes are taking place in an areaof two to three houses (in Užupis:occupied buildings next to the riverVilnia)

• No displacementsPhase 2: Mid of the 1990s (especiallysince 1998) through 2003• Immigration of the same groups as

in phase 1, but also households withan average income, e. g. independententrepreneurs and professionals

• The new group is economically notso much risk-orientated, but wants(partly) to speculate in real estate

• Low (but slowly rising) prices forthe flats are the main attraction inthat area.

• Newcomers do not refuse to be partof a social mix, but hope that the“problem” will be solved in midtermrange

• Number of empty flats is still high• The quantity of modernization in the

dwelling-houses (roofs, façades andstaircases in multi-family-buildings)is still low, even in gentrified ones

• Only few estate agents are showingtheir interest in the area; and not muchspeculative modernisation is beingundertaken by small companies

LiteratureDIJOKIENE, D. (2002): Istoriniai priemies-

čiai: geneze, raida, verte, tvarkymas(Lietuvos miestu pavyzdžiu), Daktarodisertacija (Historical suburbs: genesis,development, value, maintenance (Onthe example of Lithuanian towns), Doc-toral Dissertation). Vilnius.

BUTLER, T. (1997): Gentrification and themiddle classes. Aldershot.

FRIEDRICHS, J. a. R. KECSKES (Ed.) (1996):Gentrification. Theorie und Forschungs-ergebnisse. Opladen.

HARDTH, A., U. HERLYN a. G. SCHELLER

(1996): Ostdeutsche Städte auf Gentri-ficationkurs? Empirische Befunde zur„gespaltenen” Gentrification in Mag-deburg. In: FRIEDRICHS, J. a. R. KECSKES

(Ed.): Gentrification. Theorie und For-

schungsergebnisse. Opladen, pp. 167 -191.

HERFERT, G. (2003): Zwischen Gentrifica-tion und Abwärtsspirale. Sozialräumli-che Differenzierung in Wohnquartie-ren sächsischer GroßstadtregionenEnde der 1990er Jahre. In: Raumfor-schung und Raumordnung 61, No. 3,pp.170 - 184.

LEES, L. (2000): A reappraisal of gentrifi-cation: towards a ‘geography of gentri-fication‘. In: Progress in Human Geo-graphy 24, 3, pp. 389 - 408.

LISAUKAS, V. (2002): Vilnius – praeities irșiu dienu vaizdai. Užupis ir gretimoserdves. (Vilnius of the past and present.Užupis and neighbouring areas). Vilni-us.

MARENBACH C. (2003): Baltische Länder.Lettland, Litauen, Estland. Erlangen.

SMITH, N. (1996) The new urban frontier:gentrification and the revanchist city.London.

STANDL, H. (1998): Der post-sozialistischeTransformationsprozeß im großstädti-schen Einzelhandel Ostmittel- und Ost-europas. Der Versuch einer Typenbil-dung zum jüngsten Wandel der Innen-stadtstrukturen sowie einer modellhaf-ten Darstellung der sie beeinflussendenDeterminanten. In: Europa Regional 6,No. 3, pp. 2 - 15.

STANDL, H. (2002): Divergenzen und Kon-vergenzen in der post-sozialistischenEntwicklung der drei baltischen Haupt-städte (Tallinn, Riga und Vilnius). In:Geographie und Schule 136 (= „Trans-formation ehemals sozialistischer Städ-te“), pp. 15 - 23.

STANDL, H. (2003): Vilnius’ Long Way inForming a Modern City-Centre. In:Geografija No. 39, 1 (Vilnius), p. 46 - 54.

UZUN, C. N. (2001): Gentrification in Istan-bul: a diagnostic study. (=NederlandseGeografische Studies 285). Utrecht.

WEESEP, J. van (1994): Gentrification as aresearch frontier. In: Progress in Hu-man Geography 18, 1, pp. 74 - 83.

WEISKE, C. (1996): Gentrification and In-cumbent Upgrading in Erfurt. In: FRIED-RICHS, J. a. R. KECSKES (Ed.): Gentrifi-cation. Theorie und Forschungsergeb-nisse. Opladen, pp. 193 - 226.

Vilnius Old Town Revitalisation 1998 -2003. Vilnius (May) 2003.

Priv.-Doz. Dr. Harald StandlUniversität BambergInstitut für GeographieAm Kranen 12D-96045 [email protected]

Dr. Dovilë KrupickaitëVilnius UniversityDept. of Regional GeographyČiurlionio g. 21/27LT-2009 [email protected]

uzupis gentrification in vilnius (lithuania): the example of · history of the old town of vilnius...

Documents