The spontaneous rules of spontaneous development

Abstract

This study contributes to the long but still heated debate on spontaneity in urban development. While the critics of spontaneity consider it synonymous with chaos, its proponents emphasise the benefits of spontaneous order. In this paper, we assume that spontaneous development may have both positive and negative aspects and we seek to identify what determines whether and to what extent spontaneity will produce a beneficial social/spatial order. The prevalence of advantages or disadvantages may be due to specific historical, geographical and social causes, but we emphasise one critically important factor: the presence of spontaneous social rules.

To contribute to this debate, we acknowledge the institutional nature of spontaneous rules and underscore the need for rules to develop over time. We examine three spontaneous developments in Plovdiv, Bulgaria’s second largest city. As these settlements are typical for spontaneous forms in Southeast Europe, we draw conclusions relevant primarily to this region, but also in wider contexts. We find that spontaneous rules’ development is what determines whether order emerges and to what degree its benefits are realised. The suitability of spontaneous rules depends on local cultures, habits and values rooted in society.

Keywords

Spontaneous development spontaneous order informal settlements southeast europe spontaneous rules roma housing historical settlements

Introduction

The debate on spontaneity in urban development is not new, but it is still heated. Since policymakers, planners and most citizens today can hardly imagine urban development without comprehensive plans, spontaneous (unplanned, informal¹) urban areas are often perceived as disordered and characterized by insufficiencies such as over-dense development and lack of public amenities (e.g. Djukic and Stupar, 2009; Vyas et al., 2001). However, there are two exceptions to this critical view. First, experts praise the beauty of historical settlements such as Venice and Ronda, and the historical central areas of Prague, Florence and Zaragoza, among numerous others, but they rarely underscore the fact that these settlements developed largely spontaneously (Cozzolino, 2021). Second, since the post-war period, the international policies aimed at providing shelter for the poor have evolved from the extreme rejection of informal development – the slum eradication policy – to the policy of enablement, which aims to keep and upgrade spontaneously developed areas (Drakakis-Smith, 1981; Pugh, 1991). Informal growth is thus viewed as a possible solution to urban issues.

In the theory, the concept of spontaneous order was rooted in the works of Scottish Enlightenment thinkers such as Ferguson and further developed in the 20th century by the Austrian school. Hayek (1973) explained that when spontaneous development is based on rules, it creates order. This concept has been supported by many planning researchers (Akbar, 1988; Hakim, 2014; Moroni, 2014; Cozzolino, 2020). Despite this prolonged debate, the divide between the critics and opponents of spontaneity persists (Discoli and Martini, 2012; Cozzolino, 2018), demonstrating the lack of consensus on a fundamental question: Can spontaneity create order?

In this paper, we contribute to this debate. Our main research question is as follows: Does spontaneity generate order or disorder in urban development, and what key factors determine the former or the latter outcome? Our goal is to avoid biased approaches. We assume that urban development is shaped by both spontaneity and planning (Batty, 2012; Bertaud, 2018), while both may have advantages and disadvantages. The prevalence of advantages or disadvantages may be due to specific historical, geographical and social causes, but we emphasise the significance of one critically important factor: the presence of spontaneous social rules. Thus far, spontaneous rules have not received sufficient attention from researchers.² In this paper, we seek to explore their crucial role in the establishment of order in spontaneous developments.

To study the development and role of spontaneous rules, we investigate three spontaneous neighbourhoods in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. We introduce these neighbourhoods in the next section. In the third section, we examine the relationship between spontaneous forms of development and the concept of order. We draw on Hayek’s (1973) theory of spontaneous order, but we make clear distinctions (1) between spontaneous and formal rules and (2) between spontaneity based on rules and that based on no rules. Then, in light of our theoretical findings, we discuss the three spontaneous developments in Plovdiv. Finally, we draw conclusions about the relevant approaches to spontaneous and planned developments.

The three case studies

Our case studies come from Plovdiv, Bulgaria’s second-largest city (population 347,000). We explore the urban forms of three neighbourhoods to identify whether these forms have resulted from the existence of social rules and, if so, what rules. The three neighbourhoods are suitable case studies because they are spontaneous developments located in one city; however, they originated in different historical periods and were created by different ethnic groups who have different customs, traditions and social status. These neighbourhoods are typical of two types of spontaneous developments in Southeast Europe (SEE)³ – historical neighbourhoods and contemporary Romani settlements. As such, they are particularly useful for our research. The former type, represented by the Old Town, is widely viewed as an ordered and beautiful form of urban development, while the latter type, represented by Hadji Hasan Mahala and Harman Mahala, is considered disordered and dysfunctional. Figure 1 shows the location of the three neighbourhoods.

Figure 1.

Location of the three neighbourhoods.

The Old Town

The area of the Old Town (see Figure 2(a) and Figures S1 and S2 in the Supplementary Material) has been inhabited since the Copper Age, but most of its territory is occupied by an urban structure of about 500 properties developed at the end of the 18th century and in the 19th century. During that period, Turkish, Bulgarian, Greek, Armenian and Pavlikian communities lived in Plovdiv, which was one of the largest cities in the western part of the Ottoman Empire. With the development of trade after the mid-18th century, well-off Greek, Bulgarian, Armenian and Turkish traders built their houses in the area now known as the Old Town. The structure of the urban forms confirms their typically spontaneous and incremental nature. Today, this area is an architectural reserve almost entirely preserved since the mid- to late-19th century, and its heritage is highly valued by Bulgarians.

Figure 2.

The three neighbourhoods.

Hadji Hasan Mahala

Hadji Hasan Mahala (see Figure 2(b) and Figures S3 and S4 in the Supplementary Material) is one of the few areas of Plovdiv that continued to develop spontaneously after the first formal plan of the city – the Schnitter plan adopted in 1896.⁴ ‘Mahala’ is a Turkish word meaning ‘neighbourhood’. Hadji Hasan has been inhabited mainly by Roma populations at least since the early 19th century. Although the Roma have traditionally lived as travellers, this area is the earliest Bulgarian example of a permanent urban structure inhabited by this ethnic group. Nevertheless, the travellers’ tradition is a probable reason for the continued spontaneous housing development in Hadji Hasan, as well as in dozens of other Roma settlements in Bulgaria. Interestingly, and differently from all other Roma settlements in Bulgaria, Hadji Hasan Mahala has a regulated street structure. It is the street structure that had developed spontaneously by the end of the 19th century, at which point it was regulated by the Schnitter plan. Straightened and fixed in the plan, it remains unchanged to this day.

Harman Mahala

After the Second World War, an increasing number of Bulgarian Roma communities settled. Harman Mahala (see Figure 2(c) and Figures S5 and S6 in the Supplementary Material) is one of the two most recent Roma neighbourhoods in Plovdiv that emerged and grew quickly over the past decades.⁵ According to earlier research (Slaev, 2007), the first houses in Harman were built in the 1970s; by the mid-1980s, there were nearly 100 houses, 91 of which had no solid structure. In 2004, there were more than 300 houses, 40% of which were reinforced concrete structures.

A comparative analysis of the three neighbourhoods is particularly informative, as they exhibit contrasting features of spontaneous development that have generated very different assessments and policy responses. Similar divergent approaches are evident in the international polices aimed at providing housing for the poor in the second half of the 20th century. A strong negative assessment of the housing conditions in spontaneous neighbourhoods was the reason for the ‘slum eradication’ approach that prevailed in the 1950s/1960s. The view was that these settlements could not meet any ‘reasonable’ standards and therefore should be demolished and replaced by rationally designed developments with new ‘roomy and hygienic’ housing (Slaev, 2007). This approach led to remarkable failures (Drakakis-Smith, 1981) because the new housing rarely met the needs of the inhabitants. In contrast, a ‘policy of enablement’ (Pugh, 1991) prevailed in the 1980s/1990s. Instead of bulldozing spontaneously developed areas, this policy proposed to improve their infrastructures and provide urban services. In this view, spontaneity is not the cause of the problem but can actually be part of the solution (Bertaud, 2018).

A second issue is the assessment of the aesthetic characteristics of the spontaneously built environment. As noted in the Introduction, most historical settlements that have developed largely spontaneously around the globe are considered particularly charming and attractive. In contrast, contemporary spontaneous developments are generally considered chaotic, inferior and unsightly. Many Bulgarians and most planners perceive the Roma settlements in this way.

Theoretical framework

The purpose of this section is to explore the theoretical basis of our investigation, that is, the relationship between planning, spontaneity, order and rules. The starting point is the basic difference between planned and spontaneous order. While planning produces order by the directives of plans, spontaneous order emerges and evolves in the presence of certain rules. Here, we explore the complexity of the relationships between planning, rules and types of order when we distinguish between developments based on

- formally adopted and centrally imposed directives and rules,

- spontaneous (informal) rules, and

- no rules.

Different types of rules and order

Hayek (1973), one of the most influential theorists of spontaneous order, defines order in social systems as a situation in which individuals can plan their actions based on certain expectations about how other people will behave within a social system/community. Hayek thus distinguishes between two types of order. A made (planned/designed) order is a deliberately created arrangement imposed upon the system from the top down. Conversely, a grown (spontaneous) order is an arrangement that is not intentionally created by a single mind (e.g. by a central planner) but emerges incrementally over time from the bottom up. A critical condition for the emergence of a grown order is the existence of commonly accepted rules that allow individuals to have certain reliable expectations concerning how other people of the community will behave (Moroni, 2014; Alfasi, 2018). Thus, while a made order results from a central plan that intentionally coordinates individual actions, a grown order evolves from multiple and independent actions and interactions of urban agents coordinated/framed by certain social rules (Moroni and Cozzolino, 2019, 2020; Slaev, 2016a, 2016b).

But is spontaneity always and unavoidably associated with rules? The answer to this question is not so simple, as explained in the following paragraphs.

Social rules as institutions

A deeper understanding of the relationships between rules and order can be gained when sets of social rules are perceived as institutions. Institutions are systems of rules embedded in society (North, 1991; Salet, 2018). Like order, rules/institutions governing the development of a certain system can be made (intentionally established by the centre, the managing body of that system) or grown (developed naturally ‘by themselves’). The former rules are centralised/top-down and are generally formal, as are ‘constitutions, laws, [and] property rights’. The latter are decentralised/bottom-up and generally informal, that is spontaneous, as are ‘sanctions, taboos, customs, traditions, and codes of conduct’ (North, 1991: 97). As this is a crucial distinction in our investigation, we should clarify the relationship between spontaneous-unplanned-informal and intentional-planned-formal.

Hayek distinguishes between spontaneous and planned order to oppose spontaneous development to centrally planned development. But not all forms of planning are centralised: in an economy, for instance, all firms plan, but as this is decentralised planning, it is an element of a spontaneous order. Even in a spontaneous neighbourhood, the construction of a single building is necessarily planned (i.e. its width, length, height and type of roof are conceived by its initiator in advance), but the emerging urban form (the neighbourhood) is unintentional. Furthermore, central bodies govern social and urban processes by explicit (written) public rules, but many social activities are governed by rules that are explicitly defined in the written private contracts and statutes of private enterprises. While these private contracts and statutes are formal, they too are elements of a spontaneous (not centrally imposed) order. We therefore acknowledge that spontaneity may result from the action of formal rules or planned (but decentralised) activities. In this paper, we adhere to the popular terminology and distinguish spontaneous, unintentionally developed, decentralised, predominantly informal, and often tacit rules/institutions from intentionally developed, centralised, formal and explicit ones.

Next, while formal rules concerning particular issues may be missing in certain communities, the presence of spontaneous rules is an intrinsic feature of any social system and community (Hayek, 1973; ⁶Lai, 1999). Yet systems of rules do not emerge ‘automatically’. Sets of rules (institutions) emerge and evolve with social interactions. While rules are necessary for a community to exist, they never cover all aspects of social life because they develop and adjust slowly over time. This need for time is particularly relevant to spontaneous institutions. The establishment of formal institutions ‘by edict’ (Lai et al., 2016; Slaev, 2020; Slaev and Daskalova, 2020) may be immediate, whereas the development of spontaneous institutions is a long evolutionary process. It depends on two key factors for the establishment of spontaneous rules governing any specific form of development:

- the urgency of people’s intersubjective needs, and

- the difficulty of developing and adopting the specific rules.

For example, consider rules pertaining to the provision of food or shelter. When people need such rules, they will emerge relatively quickly because the need for food or shelter is so urgent. But when it comes to the regulation of different forms of spatial access, sustainable mobility or intellectual property, developing spontaneous rules may be much more difficult and will take much longer.

Spontaneous rules of urban development

What are the basic characteristics that spontaneous rules must possess to generate order and regulate the interactions between individuals of a certain community? To answer this question, we refer to Mill’s (1859) harm principle, Rawls’ (1999) greatest equal liberty principle, and once again Hayek’s (1973) definition of order. We assert that the fundamental principle of any set of social rules generating order is the balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of others and the community. Without such a balance – or as Hakim (2008: 24) terms it, an equitable equilibrium – spontaneous order cannot be generated or maintained because individuals will organise their environment by ignoring others’ needs and interests (e.g. by blocking sunlight or access to their neighbours’ plots). But then, in this Hobbesian ‘state of nature’, everyone will suffer from the activities of the other members of the neighbourhood who similarly ignore the needs and interests of the rest, and order will be missing from the emerging urban form.

Next, our task is to translate this basic principle into specific rules governing actual spontaneous urban development. Hakim (2008, 2014) calls these rules proscriptive – that is, thou shalt not as opposed to thou shalt. The peculiarity of such rules is that they prohibit specific actions that harm others’ interests, while preserving maximum individual freedom. This can be translated into the following basic principles: (1) preventing damage to other individuals (e.g. to one’s neighbours) and (2) preventing damage to the community. Below, we outline four issues that are important for achieving such a balance. We base our method on Yona Friedman’s (1975) approach and examine this balance regarding four key features of urban environment: land (space) for urban functions (land uses), density, access and aesthetics.

Housing characteristics and density

As spontaneous housing areas are dominated by residential functions, density is the key feature with multiple, often divergent implications for the balance between the interests of the individual and the others – the individual’s neighbours (Slaev et al., 2019). Thus, in housing areas, rules ‘preventing damage to other individuals’ should prevail. Traditionally, most residents are likely to prefer lower densities with large open spaces and greenery. However, only better-off residents can afford large open spaces. Conversely, higher densities allow construction on smaller plots at a lower cost, and housing is more affordable for poorer residents.⁷ Thus, while better-off residents prefer rules mandating lower densities, the spontaneous rules developed in poor communities allow for higher densities and more clustered housing patterns. Furthermore, housing is of such great importance that we expect that in any community, relevant spontaneous housing rules will develop quickly.

Public and open spaces and accessibility to all houses

Public uses may be quite various. They include public meetings for community events, marketplaces or sports, to name a few. Clearly, rules governing the formation of urban spaces suitable for such diverse purposes are not easy to develop, and the development of relevant spontaneous rules is slow and prolonged.

The factors that determine the development of rules regulating spatial access – that is, the formation and adjustment of street patterns – may be even more complex. Over time, conflicts emerge between individual housing spaces and public spaces for common activities and access. As families grow, they need more housing space. To solve their needs, some individuals will enclose small public spaces, thereby hindering common activities and access to others’ properties. Here, the second type of Hakim’s proscriptive rules is needed – balancing individual and communal interests. The development of rules protecting public spaces and spatial access faces substantial difficulties because the establishment of such rules is related to the degree to which a community (as a public entity with public institutions) has emerged. Only when a community has developed can its members reach an agreement specifying which public spaces must be preserved for common activities and convenient access. Which public activities are important to the local community? Is mere pedestrian access enough? What is ‘convenient enough’? For instance, if a street is 3.20 m wide and I build a house extension that encroaches on the street by 0.40 m, how much inconvenience will my neighbours experience as a result, and is it acceptable? Evidently, the development of spontaneous rules is essential to protect common spaces and maintain access. But as the establishment of a community and the development of rules take long time, in poor communities with members whose housing needs are most urgent, many spaces for common use and access may be built out before spontaneous rules arise to preserve them.

Street façades’ conditions and maintenance

The conditions and maintenance of the street façades is another important issue that reflects the relationship between individuals and a community. While households should have the right to organise their homes and yards as they see fit, the street façade is of special collective significance. It frames a public space, and maintaining it serves the community’s interests (Hakim, 2014). By keeping the street façades of their home in good condition, households demonstrate both their personal aesthetic preferences and their respect for other peoples’ interest in enjoying well-maintained public spaces (Romano, 2008). However, expressing personal aesthetic preferences depends on one’s social status because maintaining one’s house façade may require substantial resources. When many community members can afford to spend the resources, a practice turns into a spontaneous social norm, but this requires time and economic prosperity.

Empirical investigation

Methodology

Because spontaneous rules are unwritten, it is difficult to provide direct evidence of their existence. To cope with this problem, we investigate the urban forms in the three neighbourhoods to check for the existence of rules and order. If we observe the existence of an order but no formally established (i.e. municipal) rules, we infer that this order must be the result of spontaneous rules. Drawing on Hayek’s definition of order, we consider urban development ordered, if it provides benefits to local residents and communities and balances their interests. In our case studies, to assess whether developments undertaken by individuals serve their interests without compromising the interests of other individuals and the community, we investigate the four features outlined in the previous section – housing characteristics, availability of public space, access provision and the condition of street façades by using the following indicators:
(i) Assessing the provision and characteristics of housing:

- Housing densities as measured by building coverage ratio (BCR).

- Development structures as indicated by freestanding versus clustered houses.

In this case, we assume that in peripheral areas, spontaneous rules in poor communities will tend to establish high densities and clustered housing, while well-off communities will tend to have low densities and freestanding patterns. In central areas, spontaneous rules will promote high densities in communities of both types.
(ii) Assessing the provision and characteristics of public open spaces and public properties:

- Availability of spaces and properties for various public uses, as indicated by the presence of squares, public gardens, religious spaces and marketplaces.

In this case, we assume that public spaces can be provided only if certain spontaneous rules have developed. However, as explained in the previous section, in poor communities, the urgent need for housing may cause the loss of many open and public spaces before the relevant spontaneous rules develop.
(iii) Assessing the provision of access to all houses and properties:

- Spatial share of streets as a percentage of the total area.

- Length of the street network per unit of space (m/ha).

- Average width of the streets (m).

- Streets with limited access (dead-end streets).

The provision of sufficient space for access depends on the type of housing, the types and locations of jobs, and the community’s traditions. In Plovdiv, according to the cadastral survey of 2006, streets occupy 18.52% of the city’s territory, but in the traditional housing areas (planned ever since the Schnitter plan), this share varies between 21 and 24%, whereas in the housing estates from the socialist period, the share of streets is 17–19%.⁸ If the streets were longer and wider than necessary, this would not make anybody better off; rather, it would harm both individual and communal interests, and we assume that excess street space would not result from spontaneous rules.⁹ In poor spontaneous communities, public and street spaces might be lost over time due to urgent housing needs. Spaces for access may be insufficient, and streets shorter and narrower, especially if spontaneous systems of rules are underdeveloped. The provision of convenient access to all houses and properties must be the result of well-developed spontaneous rules able to deal with densification processes.
(iv) Assessing the level of maintenance of the street façades:

- Share of the well-maintained street façades as a percentage of the total number of street façades.

We assume that a high percentage of well-maintained street façades not only indicates the higher economic status of the residents but also indicates the presence of spontaneous social norms that encourage individuals to express their personal aesthetic preferences and respect others’ interest in enjoying well-maintained public spaces.

Sources of information and their use in this research

We used four main types of information in this empirical study. First, we received digital cadastral maps from the administrations of the Central and the Northern districts of the city of Plovdiv. Second, to better understand the development of the two Roma communities in Bulgaria, we examined historical studies and research on past and current Bulgarian policies towards the Roma housing problem. The third source was information from the municipal Institute ‘Old Plovdiv’ on the history of the famous houses in the city’s cultural reserve. Fourth, we conducted direct field studies.

To understand the context of the development of social rules and urban structures in the study areas, we started with a historical survey; however, information on community development before late 19th century is quite scarce. In contrast, there are many studies on squatter settlements after the mid-20th century. Furthermore, we used the digital maps and the Cadastral Administrative Information System to explore the properties. Through the field studies, we assessed the housing conditions and the maintenance of the street façades.

Results: values of the indicators used by the empirical study

To facilitate comparison of the three case studies, we present the quantitative results in Table 1. Some of the main findings are outlined below, but the details of the comparative analysis and interpretation of the data in the table appear in the following Discussion section.
Table 1.
Values of the adopted indicators, measured in the Old Town, Hadji Hassan Mahala and Harman Mahala.

Neighbourhood – when it developed Indicators The Old Town – late 19th – late 20th c. Hadji Hassan Mahala – late 19th c. – present Harman Mahala – 1970s – present

1. Building coverage ratio (BCR) % 36.74 39.06 41.74

2. Share of free-standing houses % 45 16 12

3. Share of clustered housing % 55 84 88

4. Share of streets of the total area % 16.86 21.78 13.26

5. Length of the street network per ha m/ha 208 308 161

6. Average width of the streets m 6.41 6.64 5.32

7. Length of the streets with limited access (dead-end streets) m/ha 51 130 146^a

8. Open public spaces (squares, gardens, etc.) % 1.57 0.49^b 0

9. Properties for public use (four churches, Armenian school, Dervish monastery¹⁰) % 7.94 0 0

10. Share of the buildings with façades in good condition % 88.57 49.49 34.86

^a21.3% of the streets with limited access in Harman Mahala is not accessible by car.

^bThis figure includes only one square, which is mentioned in the next section.

The densities indicated by the BCR indicator in all three neighbourhoods are substantially higher than those of Plovdiv’s other housing areas. However, the lowest indicator is in the Old Town, and the highest is in Harman Mahala.

The data indicate poor spatial access in Harman Mahala. The share of streets of the total area is the smallest in Harman Mahala and the highest in Hadji Hasan Mahala. The share of streets in the latter neighbourhood is the same as in the planned traditional housing areas of the city. Hadji Hasan has the widest streets of the three neighbourhoods.

Public spaces and properties in the Old Town comprise 9.51% of the territory. In Hadji Hasan, they comprise only 0.49% and are absent in Harman Mahala.

The façades of the buildings in the Old Town are in very good condition, but those in Harman Mahala are in bad condition.

Discussion

In this section, we discuss whether and how spontaneous rules create order in the explored urban forms. We acknowledge that the spontaneous rules developed by different communities with different cultural backgrounds may differ enormously, even when their goal is to solve similar problems (e.g. housing provision). We emphasise that systems of rules regulating activities that are more urgent or easier to coordinate (e.g. housing development) tend to develop faster. For activities that are less urgent or more difficult to coordinate (e.g. provision of public amenities), it may take much longer for systems of rules to develop.

Assessing the availability and the role of spontaneous rules relating to housing provision

The purpose of housing is to satisfy a basic human need – shelter provision. Housing densities have many and divergent implications regarding housing accessibility and the provision of hygienic and comfortable living conditions. While densities are relatively high in all three neighbourhoods (see line 1 in Table 1), the highest level is in the peripherally located Harman Mahala (41,74%). The high densities and the prevalence of clustered housing (lines 2 and 3) in this neighbourhood may be considered evidence of both the spontaneous rules typical of poor communities and the housing preferences of the Roma in Bulgaria, as explained below.

In the second half of the 20th century, most Roma communities abandoned the travelling lifestyle and settled (Marushiakova-Popova and Popov, 2017). Looking for opportunities to improve their economic situation, many Roma moved to cities (Slaev, 2007). To solve their housing problem, the socialist government provided housing units in prefab multi-storey blocks to homeless Roma. But the Roma could not adapt to living in blocks of flats because this housing form precluded essential aspects of their traditional lifestyle. To them, small independent houses that allow for progressive adjustments are more appealing. Urban standards and norms relating to multi-storey residential forms conflicted with the traditions of the Roma (Figure S7 in the Supplementary Material – Blocks of flats in the largest Roma ghetto in Plovdiv). As a result, ‘many of these buildings are now in despair, the staircases are “like after an earthquake”, the windows and the window frames of many apartments are broken, the linoleum has been overthrown’ (Tomova, 1995). In the city of Yambol, for example, a prefab block of 600 dwellings built in the 1980s and inhabited by Roma occupants was demolished in 2010 due to the poor and dangerous condition of its structure and installations (see Figure S8 in the Supplementary Material).

Bulgarian planners consider living conditions in Roma squatter settlements unacceptable, but in these settlements, the Roma themselves create affordable housing forms that suit their preferences, without any financial support from the state. Moreover, in the past decades, the quality of construction and the living conditions in the Roma settlements have improved significantly (Slaev, 2007). Virtually all new houses have a reinforced concrete structure, which is not principally different from that of the houses of Bulgarians. Apparently, housing densities that seem excessive to Bulgarians are acceptable to the Roma, especially as a way to reduce housing costs. One may conclude that high-density clustered development shaped by the spontaneous rules of the Roma community is evidently a more effective solution to the Roma housing problem in Bulgarian cities than public housing based on centrally defined standards and norms.

Assessing the availability and the role of spontaneous rules providing access to all houses and properties and generating public open spaces

The rules that determine spatial access and the quality of the urban environment are more peculiar to particular communities than the rules governing the provision of shelter, which satisfies basic, overriding, urgent human needs. In contrast, providing convenient access to houses and jobs and higher environmental quality is more complicated and requires more sophisticated coordination between community members. As rules governing access and environmental quality develop slowly, the existing institutions (e.g. habits and traditions) and the length of the period of rules development are factors of utmost importance. The form of living is a key consideration: while travellers’ communities are rather volatile, settled communities, especially communities that have inhabited a given location for a long period of time, are more likely to develop effective systems of spontaneous rules governing access and environmental quality. The case of Harman Mahala is a relevant example. As the settlement of Roma in that area began only in the 1970s, we propose that the spontaneous rules regulating specific features of urban form, such as accessibility and environmental quality, have not yet developed.

Slaev (2007) explored the development of this neighbourhood by investigating three cadastral surveys over 20 years: 1984, 1994 and 2004. A gradual loss of common spaces is evident as many of the residents ‘capture’ small parts of these spaces. The narrowing down of streets and common areas has decreased access to individual plots and hampered the performance of some public services. As the 2007 study (pp. 76–77) found, this had made ‘the laying of infrastructure many times more difficult’. Some of the streets that ‘once could be used for car access [were] now less than 2 m wide’. This was crucial because the two sewerage mains serving the territory often become clogged, but ‘as a result of the expansion of new construction, the trucks of the sewerage service [were] no longer able to enter the street to clean up the sewer mains’. These observations are confirmed by our research. The indicators in Table 1 (lines 4, 5, 6 and 7) show that Harman Mahala has the poorest access to individual plots among the three neighbourhoods. It has the smallest share of streets in the total area,¹¹ the shortest length of the street network per hectare, the smallest average width of streets and the largest length of streets with limited access. In Harman Mahala, there are no spaces for community activities like squares, public gardens or marketplaces.

The conditions for spatial access in Hadji Hassan Mahala and in Harman Mahala differ greatly. The streets of Hadji Hasan Mahala are wider (even wider than in the Old Town – Table 1, line 6) and allow better access to individual plots. This is probably due to two factors. First, the local Roma community has lived in this area at least for a century, and it is likely that spontaneous rules have developed to prevent residents who build new houses from ‘capturing’ street space. The second factor is undoubtedly the adoption of the Schnitter plan by the local authorities in 1898. We recognize that this factor is external to the local Roma community, as the plan was imposed by the municipality. But even as we acknowledge the importance of tracing the ‘street-line regulation’ by the city government, we should not underestimate the importance of spontaneous rules, as the bulk of housing in the neighbourhood is spontaneous. Indeed, 82.6% of existing houses in Hadji Hassan Mahala are unauthorised. The emergent housing patterns are irregular and do not conform to the blueprints of the plans. However, only 13 buildings in the neighbourhood encroach onto the streets. Out of 165 buildings built on the street lines, only 56 have a building permit, and the remaining 119 are unauthorised. Therefore, 106 unauthorised buildings have complied with the street-line regulations, which suggests the presence of spontaneously accepted rules in Hadji Hasan Mahala.

Our analysis of spatial access in the two Roma neighbourhoods supports the key conclusion of this research about the relationship between rules, spontaneity and order. Obviously, the lack of any rules, spontaneous or centrally established, is detrimental to the development of spontaneous order. Specifically, as the development of infrastructure concerns the interests of all residents, central planning is the proper method (Bertaud, 2018; Slaev, 2016). Moreover, proper centrally established regulations not only generate made order but may also facilitate the generation of grown order (Hayek, 1973; Moroni, 2014).

Lastly, there are no spontaneously developed community spaces in Harman Mahala. In contrast, open community spaces in the Old Town occupy 1.56% of the total territory, and properties for public use (four churches, a Dervish monastery and a school) occupy 7.94% (Table 1, line 8). As these spaces and properties pre-date planning, they indicate the existence of relevant spontaneous rules. The same observation applies to a small space in Hadji Hasan Mahala adjacent to the intersection of the neighbourhood’s two main streets (Table 1, line 8). It was preserved undeveloped until 1942 (presumably due to existing spontaneous rules), when it was planned for a square.

Assessing the existence and role of spontaneous rules relating to the expression of personal aesthetic preferences through housing appearance

To evaluate whether and when spontaneous rules concerning the expression of personal aesthetic preferences emerge, we consider two activities: (1) the expression of aesthetic preferences through street façade design, and (2) the proper maintenance of the street façades. In principle, one problem with the first activity is the lack of objective aesthetic criteria for evaluating the houses in the two Roma neighbourhoods, since the criteria vary for different ethnic groups. To provide evidence in support of the aesthetic value of the buildings and the environment in the Old Town, we cite the widespread appreciation of its architectural heritage among Bulgarian artists, researchers and scholars (Arbaliev, 1974; Peev, 1960). However, we should also acknowledge that architecture is an expensive art, so its articulation depends on individual economic status. Most of the houses in the Old Town were built by well-off merchants who (first) had the resources and (then) the ambition to express their lofty aesthetic preferences. In contrast, the residents of Plovdiv’s Roma neighbourhoods are concerned primarily with solving their housing problems. Expressing their personal aesthetic preferences is usually too costly for them.

This is also confirmed by our study of the state of the façades. As Hakim (2014) and Akbar (1988) explain, keeping the façades of a house and the surrounding area in good condition is a matter of social responsibility. We find that the façades facing the street are in the best condition in the Old Town, where almost 90% are in good shape, and in the worst condition in Harman Mahala, where almost two-thirds are in bad shape (see line 10 in Table 1). In Hadji Hasan Mahala, the condition of the façades is considerably better than in Harman. Moreover, the figures in Table 1 account only for the unauthorised housing. As the development of new solid housing (with reinforced concrete structures, in contrast to the ‘traditional’ shabby squatter housing) has accelerated in Roma neighbourhoods since 2000 (Slaev, 2007), the share of houses with building permits in Hadji Hasan has increased. When investing in the construction of larger buildings, the better-off residents are willing and able to secure the value of their investment, so authorization is important to them. They can then turn their attention to the aesthetic quality of housing and the surrounding environment. Eventually, keeping one’s house and its façades in good shape becomes a spontaneous social norm.

Conclusions

This paper has investigated the relationship between spontaneity, central planning, rules and order. Many (if not most) planners, researchers and administrators are deeply convinced of the importance of formally adopted and centrally established rules, norms and standards. However, they miss ample indications that formal standards often do not meet the needs and preferences of local inhabitants. Planners thus cannot explain why the Roma in Bulgaria prefer to live in ‘chaotic’ clustered high-density housing that they have built themselves, rather than in the apartment blocks the state provided for free in accordance with ‘proper’ centrally established norms. Central planning often causes such failures.

But then, does spontaneity always generate a beneficial urban order? Exploring our main research question has led us to the conclusion that the results of spontaneous development are not necessarily beneficial in all respects. As our research has shown, achieving spontaneous order depends on the development of spontaneous rules. Social life is impossible without rules, but the systems of spontaneous rules governing different aspects of urban processes develop at different paces. Rules develop rapidly if they are relatively simple and/or if they guide activities of primary importance to local residents. Thus, spontaneous rules regulating housing development develop in relatively short periods because of the issue’s urgency. In contrast, spontaneous rules for the provision of convenient access to residents’ homes and sufficient public spaces face serious difficulties and develop slowly.

These findings have important implications for planning policies towards informal settlements in Southeast Europe. While planners in the region always consider informal settlements as a challenge that needs powerful and comprehensive planning interventions, the conclusions of this research suggest a much more nuanced approach. In activities where systems of rules are more likely to develop spontaneously (e.g. housing development), planners should have more trust in spontaneity and should be more critical of the impulse to intervene. In contrast, planning interventions are necessary to manage activities for which spontaneous systems of rules are less likely to develop – such as the provision of access and public open spaces. Even in such cases, planning interventions may be more relevant if planners do their best to reflect on specific local needs, rather than imposing ‘universal’ ‘best’ standards.

These conclusions are relevant not only to the SEE region but also in much wider contexts – in different parts of the world and various types of spontaneous growth and urban forms. Furthermore, these conclusions may apply to planned urban development as well. In fact, no development is fully planned, and thus the interplay between spontaneity and planning is always important (Ikeda, 2017; Bertaud, 2018; Cozzolino, 2021), even if planners tend to ignore spontaneity. If planners had more trust in spontaneity, they would leave more space for it, because where spontaneous rules are likely to emerge, they are likely to reflect the preferences of the residents much better than central planning does. As the case of Hadji Hasan Mahala has shown, the interplay between planning and spontaneity can be highly beneficial. Further research in this area is much needed.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The spontaneous rules of spontaneous development

Supplemental Material for The spontaneous rules of spontaneous development by Aleksandar D Slaev, Stefano Cozzolino, Boriana Nozharova and Jetchka Ilieva in Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science.

	Neighbourhood – when it developed Indicators		The Old Town – late 19th – late 20th c.	Hadji Hassan Mahala – late 19th c. – present	Harman Mahala – 1970s – present
1.	Building coverage ratio (BCR)	%	36.74	39.06	41.74
2.	Share of free-standing houses	%	45	16	12
3.	Share of clustered housing	%	55	84	88
4.	Share of streets of the total area	%	16.86	21.78	13.26
5.	Length of the street network per ha	m/ha	208	308	161
6.	Average width of the streets	m	6.41	6.64	5.32
7.	Length of the streets with limited access (dead-end streets)	m/ha	51	130	146^a
8.	Open public spaces (squares, gardens, etc.)	%	1.57	0.49^b	0
9.	Properties for public use (four churches, Armenian school, Dervish monastery¹⁰)	%	7.94	0	0
10.	Share of the buildings with façades in good condition	%	88.57	49.49	34.86

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Aleksandar D Slaev

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Aleksandar D. Slaev is a Professor of Spatial Planning and Housing Architecture at Varna Free University. He also teaches Financing Urban Development at the University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy in Sofia. Authored books: “Planning the Anthropogenic Environment and Natural Resources: Theory of Complex Property Rights”, “Market Theory of Urbanism”, “Economic Modelling in Urban Planning” and “Housing Forms”; co-authored “Territorial Planning and Administrative Structure” and “Financing Urban Development”. Aleksandar D. Slaev is currently working on “A Theory of Complex Property Rights”.

Stefano Cozzolino is Senior Researcher at ILS – Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development (Dortmund) and lecturer at RWTH Aachen University. His main research interest focuses on the interplay between planning/design and the evolution/emergence of spontaneous social-spatial configurations. In the last couple of years, he has worked on topics like (anti)adaptive neighbourhoods, the concept of spontaneous urban beauty, rules/conditions for self-organizing cities, and the correlation between property pattern and the distribution of design responsibility in the built environment. He is also the coordinator of the AESOP (Association of European Schools of Planning) Thematic Group on Ethics, Values and Planning.

Boriana Nozharova is an Assistant Professor at Varna Free University. She has research interests and publishes in the fields of sustainable planning and architecture, modes of sustainable urban mobility, architecture of public buildings.

Jetchka Ilieva is an Associate Professor at Varna Free University. She has research interests and publishes in the fields of the history of architecture and planning and preservation of historic buildings.

References

Akbar

(1988) Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City. Singapore: Concept Media Pte Ltd.

Alfasi

(2018) The coding turn in urban planning: could it remedy the essential drawbacks of planning? Planning Theory 17(3): 375–395.

Arbaliev

(1974) Българската възрожденска къща и нейната украса [The Bulgarian Revival House and its decoration]. Sofia: Tehnika.

Batty

(2012) Urban regeneration as self-organisation. Architectural Design 82(1): 54–59.

Bertaud

(2018) Order without Design. How Markets Shape Cities. Cambridge: MIT press.

Cozzolino

(2018) Reconsidering urban spontaneity and flexibility after Jane Jacobs: how do they work under different kinds of planning conditions? Cosmos+Taxis 5(3): 14–24.

Cozzolino

(2020) The (anti) adaptive neighbourhoods. Embracing complexity and distribution of design control in the ordinary built environment. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 47(2): 203–219.

Cozzolino

(2021) On the spontaneous beauty of cities: neither design nor chaos. URBAN DESIGN International 27(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-021-00170-w.

Discoli

Martini

(2012) Unplanned urban growth and its effect on the sustainability. Resources and Environment 2021 2(3): 107–115.

10.

Djukic

Stupar

(2009) Unplanned settlements, (un)expected problems: ‘green’ solutions for low carbon Serbia? In: Proceedings of the 45th ISOCARP Congress, Porto, Portugal, October, 18-22, 2009 , ISOCARP/AIU.

11.

Drakakis-Smith

(1981) Housing and the Urban Development Process. London: Croom Helm.

12.

Friedman

(1975) Toward a Scientific Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

13.

Hakim

(2008) Mediterranean urban and building codes: origins, content, impact, and lessons. Urban Design International 13: 21–40.

14.

Hakim

(2014) Mediterranean Urbanism. Historic Urban/Building Rules and Processes. Berlin: Springer.

15.

Hayek

(1973) Law, legislation and liberty. In: Rules and Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, Volume 1.

16.

Ikeda

(2017) The city cannot be a work of art. Cosmos Taxis 4(2): 79–86.

17.

Lai

LWC

(1999) Hayek and town planning: a note on Hayek’s views towards town planning in the constitution of liberty. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 31(9): 1567–1582.

18.

Lai

Davies

Lorne

(2016) Creation of property rights in planning by contract and edict: beyond “coasian bargaining” in private planning. Planning Theory 15(4): 418–434.

19.

Marushiakova-Popova

Popov

(2017) Orientalism in Romani studies: the case of Eastern Europe. In: Kyuchukov

New

(eds). Languages of Resistance: Ian Hancock’s Contribution to Romani Studies. München: Lincom Europa.

20.

Mill

(1859) On Liberty. Oxford, England: Oxford University, pp. 21–22.

21.

Moroni

(2014) Two different theories of two distinct spontaneous phenomena: orders of actions and evolution of institutions in Hayek. Cosmos+Taxis 1(2): 9–22.

22.

Moroni

Cozzolino

(2019) Action and the city: Emergence, complexity, planning. Cities 90: 42–51.

23.

Moroni

Cozzolino

(2020) Conditions of actions in complex social-spatial systems. In: de Roo

Yamu

Zuidema

(eds) Handbook on Planning and Complexity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 186–202.

24.

North

(1991) Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1): 97–112.

25.

Peev

(1960) Пловдивската къща през епохата на Възраждането. Sofia: The Plovdiv House during the Bulgarian RevivalTehnika.

26.

Pugh

(1991) Housing policies and the role of the world bank. Habitat International 15: 117–137.

27.

Rawls

(1999) A Theory of Justice. Revised ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

28.

Romano

(2008) La Città Come Opera d’arte. Torino: Einaudi.

29.

Salet

(2018) Public Norms and Aspirations: The Turn to Institutions in Action. London: Routledge.

30.

Slaev

(2007) Bulgarian policies towards the Roma housing problem and Roma squatter settlements. European Journal of Housing Policy 7(1): 63–84.

31.

Slaev

(2016a) Types of planning and property rights. Planning Theory 15(1): 23–41.

32.

Slaev

(2016b) Property rights and methods of nomocratic planning. Planning Theory 15(3): 274–293.

33.

Slaev

(2020) Complex private-common property rights in institutional and planning theories. Planning Theory 19(2): 193–213. DOI: 10.1177/1473095219874832.

34.

Slaev

Daskalova

(2020) Complex property rights and Coasean bargaining in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 22(4): 486–500. DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2020.1768833.

35.

Slaev

Kovachev

Nozharova

Daskalova

Nikolov

Petrov

(2019) Overcoming the failures of citizen participation: The relevance of the liberal approach in planning. Planning Theory 18(4): 448–469. doi: 10.1177/1473095219848472.

36.

Tomova

(1995) Циганите в преходния период. [The Gypsies in the Transition Period]. Sofia: International Centre on Problems of Minorities and Cultural Interactions.

37.

Tsenkova

(2012) Urban planning and informal cities in Southeast Europe. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 29(4): 292–305.

38.

Vyas

Upadhyay

Sorathia

(2001) Chaotic urban growth. Indian Society of Geomatics Newsletter 7(4): 16–24.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.41 MB