At the beginning of the post-socialist transition, East European cities could be differentiated
easily from their western counterparts in that they lacked the rings of affluent suburbs in the
urban periphery. (Haussermann, 1996; Hirt, 2007) Cities were marked by a well-defined
urban boundary, beyond which lay a rural periphery of modest villages. Following the fall of
socialism and the deregulation of urban land, suburban developments, which are typical of
Western cities, have emerged. The literature has shown that in many cases suburbanization
was fuelled by residential decentralization of primarily upper class households, motivated by
the pursuit of higher residential standards, lower densities, lusher natural environment and
proximity to people with similar cultural traits. (Stanilov 2007, Tammaru et al 2004, Timar
and Varadi 2001, Fishman 1897, Jackson 1985).This «flight» of the wealthier classes to the
suburbs has been likened to the type of suburbanization, common in Western metropolises.
Upper-class Western-style suburbanization, with its origins in late 18th-century England,
climaxed in the post-World War II era USA, where it continues intensely today. Herein,
middle- and upper-middle class residents migrate from central to peripheral districts, seeking
to escape urban density in manicured, large-scale “bedroom” subdivisions. These serve
primarily as a home for wealthy residents, who still commute for work. Studies on postsocialist
suburbanization have confirmed that post-socialist suburban development has in
many cases evolved in the image of this Western trend, albeit with significant delay (Hirt
2007, Nedovic-Budic and Tsenkova 2006, Stanilov 2007). In many Western nations however,
there is also migration of lower classes to suburbs, prevalent especially in southern urban
metropolises. Thus, if post-socialist suburban form can be likened to Western suburban form,
then it has the proclivity to secure private wealth as well as marginalize lower-income
groups, simultaneously.
Whereas there has been much literature on Western style suburbanization in post-socialist
cities, it has focused almost exclusively on upper-class decentralization. This paper argues
that, while this type of upper-class suburbanization may well have been the distinctive form
of suburbanization in Sofia for several decades, other types of suburbs are developing. These
suburbs are constituted by lower and middle-income groups, whose relocation to the capitals’
periphery is fuelled not by the ambition to improve lifestyle but for increased opportunities
near the city. Are there then, in fact, two, separate types of suburban realities emerging?
Not yet published studies by a project funded by the Seventh Framework Programme of the
European Commission (TURAS) indicate such a pattern of contrasting, suburban realities.
Based upon historical review and these new findings, this work aims to identify and
distinguish disparate trends in Sofia’s suburbs, generated by residential traditions and
different social motivations.
In order to do this, the first section of the paper considers the phenomenon of
suburbanization in the context of South-eastern Europe. This is followed by a brief overview
of suburbanization as it has occurred in the Bulgarian capital, especially with regard to the
influence of socialism and post-socialism on specific drives and social and demographic
characteristics of suburban development. Finally, the characteristics of post-socialist,
contemporary suburbanization in Sofia are considered. With a focus on the social and
Transitioning towards urban resilience and sustainability 2
demographic features of new residents in emerging suburbs, the study attempts to identify
and differentiate between various motivations of these residents and thus to explain
contemporary patterns of suburban development in Sofia’s peripheral districts.