{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018456375838926176, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.51912568306011, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Between degradation and gentrification in a post-transformational metropolis city center: the case of St. Petersburg

Two dimensions of post-socialist urban transformation – socio-spatial restructuring and changes in urban morphology – are still present in the urban cores of such cities as St. Petersburg. The process of transformation has produced certain peculiarities concerning general modernization trends. Unlike in the majority of cities, the historic center of a post-transformation metropolis has witnessed the simultaneous struggle of two trends: residential gentrification and social degradation. None of the processes became dominant over the studied period; nor was a balance reached between the two trends. Fundamentally, different types of spatial behavior among social groups prevailed in the center. It is likely that this social contrast affected the closing of space within and around the buildings especially among those with higher income status who lived in these buildings. This example shows that the two dimensions of ongoing post-socialist urban transformation mentioned above are closely interrelated – social shifts are actively changing physical urban landscape.