Compactness results for District 18

Compactness can be measured with well-chosen indicators. To compare Budapest's peripheral districts, the research built a bespoke, three-dimensional compactness index that shows how each district stands relative to the others.

1.How do we measure compactness?

The index rests on three dimensions: urban density, functional mix and mobility. Each is made up of two or three indicators — housing and job density, the population density of residential areas, land-use mix, the jobs-to-housing balance, stop and street-junction density, and cycling provision. The research used min–max normalisation to bring the differently scaled indicators onto a 0–1 range, averaged them per dimension, and the mean of the three dimensions yields each district's compactness index.

Importantly, the aim is not an absolute "compactness score" but a relative comparison of the peripheral districts against one another. The study included districts in a similarly peripheral position.

2.The ranking: bottom third

The most compact is District 4 (high density, favourable transport — the only district studied with a direct metro connection), followed by Districts 3 and 15. The northern districts, more tightly integrated into Budapest's urban structure, are more compact. District 18 sits 7th of the nine — in the bottom third.

3.Where is it lagging most?

The sub-indices reveal where the shortfall comes from. In urban density the district is mid-field, but functional mix and, especially, mobility drag down the overall index.

The low functional-mix value reflects the dominance of residential areas and a mono-functional structure. In mobility, cycling provision is one of the lowest in the field.

The transport infrastructure of Budapest's fifth most populous district is among the most underdeveloped, which places a serious burden at the citywide level too.

In the mobility ranking District 18 comes 8th of the nine, yet once we also factor in population it slips to the very bottom of the list.

Closely related to this is the modal split — the share of each mode of transport. In District 18 the share of private cars exceeds 55%. Of the peripheral districts studied, car use stays below 50% in only three (IV., XV. and III.) — precisely the three most compact districts.

Among the sustainable modes, public transport has a strikingly high share, while the active modes — cycling and walking — together do not even reach 9%, which is in line with Budapest-wide patterns.

4.What do the output indicators show?

Public-service capacity is a little below the average of the districts studied: the ratios of kindergarten places and secondary-school teachers are weaker, while GP provision is above average. Encouragingly, intra-district employment is close to 39% — roughly two-fifths of the district's working residents work locally, which counts as a good figure in this field.

5.There is something to build on

According to the development-potential indicators, about 4.5% of the district's area is brownfield, the share of unoccupied dwellings is around 9–10%, and the resident population grew between the last two censuses. Together these represent a genuine reserve: if inbound demand is channelled along the principles of the compact, sustainable city, the district will not sprawl extensively but instead form points of densification.