An important challenge for the research on post-socialist big cities is to identify the mechanisms of their uncontrolled urban space growth. This analysis is focused on the built-up urban space affected by transformations from a centrally planned to a market-based economy. Post-socialist changes in Bucharest are clearly reflected in the dynamics of built-up space. Land cover dynamics were evaluated using spectral mixture analysis of Landsat 5 TM (Thematic Mapper) data to map percent impervious surface area in 1988 and 2010. Change analysis reveals (1) a decrease of built space in central and peri-central areas of Bucharest, (2) an expansion of new residential areas to the south, (3) land fragmentation to the east and southeast, (4) a mixture of densities to the north, and (5) the role of the ring road in spurring recent development. A key challenge facing Bucharest is the disposition and repurposing of the lands covered by old large housing estates and shuttered heavy industries.
AfandiyevVEminovZNagiyevS (2014) Economic and geographic factors affecting the development of Greater Baku. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis6(2): 203–218.
2.
AitkenheadMLAaldersIH (2008) Classification of Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery for land cover using neural networks. International Journal of Remote Sensing29(7): 2075–2084.
3.
AntropM (2004) Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning67(1–4): 9–26.
4.
ArapoglouVPSayasJ (2009) New facets of urban segregation in Southern Europe: Gender, migration and social class change in Athens. European Urban and Regional Studies16(4): 345–362.
5.
BalanS (1982) Cutremurul de pământ din România de la 4 martie 1977. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
6.
BerenyiI (1994) Transformation of the urban structure of Budapest. GeoJournal32(4): 403–414.
7.
BertaudA (2004) The spatial organization of cities: Deliberate outcome or unforeseen consequence? Working Paper No. 2004–01, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, UC Berkeley, CA.
8.
BoardmanJWKruseFAGreenRO (1995) Mapping target signatures via partial unmixing of AVIRIS data. Proceedings of the Fifth JPL Airborne Earth Science Workshop. JPL Publication 95–01. Pasadena, CA: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, pp. 23–26. Available at: http://aviris.jpl.nasa.gov/proceedings/1995_toc.html.
9.
BoudreauJA (2008) Urbanity. In: DarityWWJr (ed.) International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (2nd edition). Volume 8. Detroit, MI: Course Technology, pp. 544–545.
10.
BubuleteD (2010–2011) Urbanismul socialist al anilor 1944–1969. Urbanismul – Serie Nouă, 7–8: 92–97.
11.
BučekJBlehaB (2013) Urban shrinkage as a challenge to local development planning in Slovakia. Moravian Geographical Reports21(1): 2–15.
12.
CepoiuA-L (2008) Rolul activităţilor industriale în dezvoltarea aşezărilor din spaţiul metropolitan al Bucureştilor. Bucharest: Editura Universitară.
Commission of the European Communities (1994) CORINE Land Cover – Part 1: Methodology. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency
17.
DantaD (1993) Ceauşescu’s Bucharest. The Geographical Review83(2): 170–182.
18.
EnyediG (1992) Urbanisation in East Central Europe: Social processes and societal responses in the state socialist systems. Urban Studies29(6): 869–880.
FilipSCoceanP (2012) Urban industrial brownfields: Constraints and opportunities in Romania. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences7(4): 155–164.
21.
GavrişA (2011) Mari habitate urbane în Bucureşti: Studiu de geografie urbană. Bucharest: Editura Universitară.
22.
GölerDMartinovićMRatkajI. (2012) Informelles Wohnen als Routine? Multiple urbane Transformationen in der Agglomeration Belgrad: Das Beispiel Kaluđerica. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft154: 212–234.
23.
GuranL (2002) Investiţiile străine directe şi dezvoltarea sistemului de aşezări din România. Bucharest: Editura Tehnică.
24.
HaaseDHaaseAKabischN. (2012) Actors and factors in land-use simulation: The challenge of urban shrinkage. Environmental Modelling & Software35: 92–103.
25.
HallP (1993) Forces shaping urban Europe. Urban Studies30(6): 883–898.
26.
HarsanyiJCChangCI (1994) Hyperspectral image classification and dimensionality reduction: An orthogonal subspace projection approach. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing32(4): 779–785.
27.
IanoşI (2004) Dinamica urbană. Bucharest: Editura Tehnică.
28.
IanoşIMerciuF-CMerciuG. (2014) Unclear perspectives for a specific intra-urban space: Văcăreşti Lake area (Bucharest city). Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences9(4): 215–224.
29.
IanoşIPetrişorAIZamfirD. (2013) In search of relevant index measuring territorial disparities in a transition country. Romania as a case study. Erde144(1): 69–81.
30.
IanoşISîrodoevIPascariuG (2012a) Land-use conflicts and environmental policies in two post-socialist urban agglomerations: Bucharest and Chişinău. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences7(4): 125–136.
31.
IanoşISîrodoevIPascariuG (2012b) Built-up space dynamics complicates the present-day urban land use in Bucharest. Analele Universităţii din Oradea – Seria Geografie22(1): 48–53.
32.
Institutul Naţional de Statistică (2011) Anuarul Statistic al României. Bucharest: INS.
33.
IojăCPătroescuMNiculiţăL. (2008) Residential areas with deficient access to urban parks in Bucharest – Priority areas for urban rehabilitation. In: PopescuDBacanuGManoleaG (eds) Environmental Problems and Development. Proceedings of the 1st WSEAS International Conference on Urban Rehabilitation and Sustainability (URES’08). Bucharest: WSEAS Press, pp. 71–74.
34.
IonFPîrvuD (2015) Territorial discrepancies in the rural–urban fringe zone of Bucharest. Scientific Bulletin – Economic Sciences14(1): 56–63.
35.
ITT – Visual Information Solutions (2010) ENVI User’s Guide (ENVI Software Version 4.8, Nov. 2010 ed.).
36.
KabischNHaaseDHaaseA (2010) Evolving reurbanisation? Spatiotemporal dynamics as exemplified by the East German city of Leipzig. Urban Studies47(5): 967–990.
37.
KährikATammaruT (2008) Population composition in new suburban settlements of the Tallinn Metropolitan Area. Urban Studies45(5–6): 1055–1078.
38.
KasankoMBarredoJILavalleC. (2006) Are European cities becoming dispersed?: A comparative analysis of 15 European cities. Landscape and Urban Planning77(1–2): 111–130.
Legea nr. 66/1971 pentru aprobarea Decretului nr. 307/1971 privind stabilirea domiciliului în oraşele care, potrivit legii, sînt declarate oraşe mari. Buletinul Oficial, 158 (17.12.1971).
41.
Legea nr. 58/1974 privind sistematizarea teritorială a localităţilor urbane şi rurale. Buletinul Oficial, 135 (1.11.1974).
42.
LeverWF (1991) Deindustrialisation and the reality of the post-industrial city. Urban Studies28(6): 983–999.
43.
MarcińczakSSaganI (2010) The socio-spatial restructuring of Łódź, Poland. Urban Studies48(9): 1789–1809.
44.
MontgomeryJ (1998) Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design3(1): 93–116.
45.
MusilJ (1993) Changing urban systems in post-communist societies in Central Europe: Analysis and prediction. Urban Studies30(6): 899–905.
46.
NaeMM (2006) Facteurs limitatifs de l’habitat urbain bucarestois lors de l’époque post-transitionnelle à l’impact visible sur la qualité de vie. Analele Universităţii din Bucuresti – GeografieLV: 63–73.
NaeMMTurnockD (2011) The new Bucharest: Two decades of restructuring. Cities28(2): 206–219.
49.
Oficiul Naţional al Registrului Comerţului (2014) Societăţi cu participare străină la capital: Sinteză statistică a datelor din Registrul Central al Comerţului la 31 ianuarie 2014. Numărul 189. Bucharest: Ministerul Justiţiei.
50.
PascariuG (2009) Urbanism şi democraţie. Urbanismul – Serie Nouă3: 79–81.
51.
PătroescuMIojăCRozylowiczL. (2012) Evaluarea integrată a calităţii mediului în spaţii rezidenţiale. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
52.
PeptenatuDDrăghiciCMerciuC (2012) Characteristics of entrepreneurial profile in some emergent territorial structures in Romania. Actual Problems of Economics12(138): 448–458.
53.
PintiliiRDMerciuFCPeptenatuD. (2011) Sports leisure time tourism – A way of revitalising emergent spaces from the metropolitan area of Bucharest. Analele Universitatii din Oradea – Seria Geografie21(2): 323–332.
54.
PløgerJ (2006) Urban planning and urban life: Problems and challenges. Planning, Practice & Research21(2): 201–222.
Rambøll Consultancy Company (1996) Disparităţi regionale în România 1990–1994. Contract PHARE 95-1246.00.
57.
RashedTWeeksJRGadallaMS (2001) Revealing the anatomy of cities through spectral mixture analysis of multispectral satellite imagery: A case study of the greater Cairo region, Egypt. Geocarto International16(4): 7–18.
58.
RashedTWeeksJRStowD. (2005) Measuring temporal compositions of urban morphology through spectral mixture analysis: Toward a soft approach to change analysis in crowded cities. International Journal of Remote Sensing26(4): 699–718.
59.
RiddMK (1995) Exploring a V–I–S (vegetation–impervious surface–soil) model for urban ecosystem analysis through remote sensing: Comparative anatomy for cities. International Journal of Remote Sensing16(12): 2165–2185.
60.
RoystonP (1982) An extension of Shapiro and Wilk’s W test for normality to large samples. Applied Statistics31: 115–124.
61.
RufatSSudituB (2008) Bucarest, vivre et faire la ville entre heritage et mimetisme. L’Espace Géographique37(4): 327–337.
62.
SăgeatăR (2010) The role of political factors in the urbanisation and regional development in Romania. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis2(1): 81–88.
63.
SalvatiL (2014) Urban growth and the spatial structure of a changing region: An integrated assessment. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis6(1): 5–14.
64.
SandelinEAntierG (2010–2011) Urbanismul pe vremea lui Ceausescu: O privire din afară. Urbanismul – Serie Nouă7–8: 125–127.
65.
SanduAS (2007) The Kernel That Makes it Grow. Bucharest: Arhitext Design Foundation.
66.
SetoKSánchez-RodríguezRFragkiasM (2010) The new geography of contemporary urbanization and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources35: 167–194.
67.
SmallC (2001) Estimation of urban vegetation abundance by spectral mixture analysis. International Journal of Remote Sensing22(7): 1305–1334.
68.
StoicaIVTălângăCBraghinăC. (2011) Ways of managing the urban–rural interface. Case study: Bucharest. Analele Universităţii din Oradea – Seria Geografie21(2): 313–322.
69.
SungCYLiM-H (2012) Considering plant phenology for improving the accuracy of urban impervious surface mapping in a subtropical climate regions. International Journal of Remote Sensing33(1): 261–275.
70.
SýkoraL (1999) Changes in the internal spatial structure of post-communist Prague. GeoJournal49(1): 79–89.
71.
SýkoraLČermákZ (1998) City growth and migration patterns in the context of ‘communist’ and ‘transitory’ periods in Prague’s urban development. Espace, Populations, Sociétés1998-3: 405–416.
72.
SýkoraLOuředníčekM (2007) Sprawling post-communism metropolis: Commercial and residential suburbanization in Prague and Brno, the Czech Republic. In: RazinEDijstMVazquezC (eds) Employment Deconcentration in European Metropolitan Areas. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 209–233.
73.
TălângăC (1984) Consideraţii geografice privind corelaţia dintre populaţie şi evoluţia teritorială a oraşului Bucureşti. In: PoseaG (coord.) Comunicări şi referate de geografie. Bucharest: Societatea de Stiinte Geografice din R.S.Romania – Filiala Bucureşti, pp. 128–130.
TsenkovaS (2008) Managing change: The comeback of postsocialist cities. Urban Research & Practice1(3): 291–310.
76.
VaisD (2009) On the margins of urban Europe: Housing policies in a secondary city (Cluj, Romania). Urban Research & Practice2(1): 91–102.
77.
VânăuG (2011) Interfaţa spaţial-funcţională dintre Municipiul Bucureşti şi teritoirul suport al acestuia. Bucharest: Editura Universitară.
78.
VladSPopescuC (1993) Evolution of retail activities in Bucharest after 1990. Analele Universităţii de Vest Timişoara2: 189–197.
79.
WattsHD (1991) Plant closures in urban areas: Towards a local policy response. Urban Studies28(5): 803–817.
80.
WeeksJ (2010) Defining urban areas. In: RashedTJürgensC (eds) Remote Sensing of Urban and Suburban Areas. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 33–45.
81.
WengQHuXLuD (2008) Extracting impervious surfaces from medium spatial resolution multispectral and hyperspectral imagery: A comparison. International Journal of Remote Sensing29(11): 3209–3232.
82.
WuCMurrayAT (2003) Estimating impervious surface distribution by spectral mixture analysis. Remote Sensing of Environment84(4): 493–505.
83.
WuNSilvaEA (2010) Artificial intelligence solutions for urban land dynamics: A review. Journal of Planning Literature24(3): 246–265.
