ABSTRACT
The basic tenets of Henri Lefebvre’s theory were gained from the observation of the capitalist city. Since Budapest is a paradigmatic case of capitalist urbanization in the late nineteenth century, this theory oers adequate tools to analyse its complex spatiality. Budapest served as the mould for other models of society and production, of socialism and post-socialism as well, inspiring or even necessitating interpretations that address the relationship of a society to its conceived, perceived and lived spaces. Similar interpretations abound in the literature – Péter Nádas’ Évkönyv (Yearbook, 1989), with observations about individuals and societies shaped by the form of houses and cities, is just one case in point. The launch of the journal of the Centre for Regional Research of the Hungarian Academy of Science, Tér és társadalom (Space and Society) in 1987, with references to neo-Marxist interpretations of social space – including Lefebvre’s (Kiss 1987) – indicate that empirical research on territorial development, mobility and urbanization started well before the collapse of socialism. The intention behind many of the debates was to show the competing political interests and their social programmes behind the technical or professional arguments of urban planning. Since in a socialist economy competing positions were not based on opposed economic interests, they concluded that urban practice as disguised, economy-based social struggle would eventually give way to real social practice in the city – at least this was the hope of many theorists in search of an alternative model of socialism.
