Internal Diversity of the City
An Administrative and Market Perspective
Abstract
The article examines and analyses the differences between the municipal auxiliary units (such as neighborhoods, estates, and districts) established by Polish cities with powiat rights, and the spatial subdivisions utilized by participants in the real estate market. These differences highlight two distinct perspectives: the administrative viewpoint of city governments and the everyday experiences of residents, which align more closely with the subdivisions recognized by the real estate market. A deeper understanding of these distinctions can enable local authorities to enhance spatial, housing, and transport policies, ultimately fostering better conditions for public participation. This study contributes to the field of urban morphology, a topic explored since the Chicago School, and examines the role of space in shaping public policies. The study juxtaposes the administrative divisions of 19 cities with powiat rights in the Silesian Voivodeship with against of city areas used in local real estate markets. The analysis identifies key factors underlying the observed differences: residents often view the administrative divisions as artificial, while the market perspective highlights the most desirable residential areas as well as locations with lower housing quality. as Additionally, it emphasizes the complexity of large housing estate units built during different periods, with flats of differing quality. These findings support the value of leveraging information from the real estate market to analyze urban subdivisions for the benefit of public policy.
Copyright (c) 2024 Ignatianum University in Cracow
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Yearbook only accepts materials for publication that are free of all conflicts of interest, and that in no way involve conflicts over authorship, copyright, etc. The Editors will take action against any cases of plagiarizing, ghostwriting1, guest/honorary authorship2, etc. Where co-authored work is concerned, the Author listed first is expected to take responsibility for the submission, and is required to make clear the contributions of all of the Co-Authors involved. In the event of the publication owing its existence to funding dedicated to this purpose, this fact should be made clear: e.g. in any note of thanks/acknowledgement, or in a footnote, etc. Explicit notification should be given of any form of reprinting, with the appropriate evidence of permission to publish being furnished as required. Any impropriety on the part of Authors/Reviewers risks exposing them to appropriate responses from the relevant institutions.
______
1 This term refers to instances of a person who has made an essential contribution being omitted from the list of authors, or from notes conveying gratitude and/or acknowledgement.
2 This occurs when a person who has made either an insignificant contribution or no contribution at all nevertheless appears on the list of authors.
