Logo HOME | Summary | Thematic Reports | Case Studies | Partners | Public Documents | Contacts | Links
 
   
Logo   Empowering Neighbourhoods Through Recourse of Urban Synergies
  Case Studies
Quick Launch
 
 

Case Studies   Vilnius Old Town: Užupis – Paupys Area Case study

1.2. Socio-demographic characteristics

As in general in Lithuania and Vilnius, number of residents in Užupis and Paupys area was decreasing in 1992-1997. Since then the number get more or less stable. By the data of population census, carried out in spring 2001, there were 5133 residents in the area, which constituted 1 % of city’s total population, and 24 % of Old Town district’s residents.

Age structure of Užupis/Paupys’ residents is similar to that of Vilnius city and Old Town district (see Chart 1). Current average grow old of the population in the area is app. 30-35 years. By the broad age group, area’s population structure includes 18.3% of children (till 15 years old), 66.3 % of working age population, and 15.4 % of retirement age population.

Chart 1 Population by age group in 2001 (%)

Most of Užupis/Paupys area’s residents (64%) are Lithuanians, which is comparatively larger share than an average in Vilnius city and Old Town district (see Chart 2). The ethnic mix of the area includes substantial Polish and Russian minorities. The other ethnic groups are represented by Byelorussians, Ukrainians, Germans, Jews, Danish, and others.

Chart 2 Population by national descent, 2001 (%)

Education level of Užupis/Paupys’ residents could be considered as slightly higher than an average in Vilnius as the area has larger share of people with higher and secondary education, and smaller share of residents with basic education and those not educated (see Chart 3).

Chart 3 Residents* by education, 2001

Residents of 10 years old and older

Specific demographic facts characterizing current residents in the area is that more than 73% of Poles and 64% of Russians are older than 45; nearly 89% of residents having high education are Lithuanians.

Residents' identification with Užupis/Paupys area is very strong. Even 80% of Užupis residents would not change their living area to the other Vilnius district. On other Vilnius districts this indicator is about 61%. This is a big resource of the area. Residents are potentially active, they would like to do something for their area (for example to help to organize local festivals and various alternative cultural actions). It is necessary to use this potential. Residents are proud of results of community activities: festivals and sculpture of Angel. Only one local festival - Užupis Independence Day - really integrates community (65% of residents have participated). There are two more popular festivals: Firewood Market and Trap Day, but the rest of the festivals have esoteric character and attract not many people. To compare with other Vilnius districts, there are no more districts where 40% residents would say they would like to join (or already have joined) to the organisation of community events.

Užupis residents are more optimistic than the rest of Vilnius citizens. When they were asked to evaluate their existing situation in the scale from 1 to 5 points, 16% of them gave highest evaluation of 4 an 5 points. This indicator for all Vilnius citizens is only 6%. When Užupis residents were asked to imagine their situation after 3 years, 38% of them gave the highest evaluation, Vilnius City indicator is 21% of the same answers.

Užupis residents realise the advantages of living in the Old Town: everything is near and possible to reach by foot. Many of residents work or study in their district or not far from it, so they really walk by foot a lot. Užupis have heterogeneous social infrastructure, there are some education and health care institutions, various shops, cafes, libraries, hotels, galleries, a church, a post, a hairdressing, even a small theatre, but residents use them not often, and they complain that shopping possibilities are not comfortable enough. They did not mention one concrete institution or service, which everybody would miss in the area.

Satisfaction with their district is quite big while residents see the area from the birds eye view. When they think about their closer environment, there are more complains. Main problems: residential houses that need an essential repair (roofs, network of pipes, staircases), and yards that need more maintenance and improvement. It seems like the neighbours are not able to reach common agreements and deal with these problems. Only 4% of Užupis residents are joined into Homeowners Associations when average Vilnius indicator for associations is 20%. But this is caused by polarisation and deep social differences of the recent new comers and old-timer residents in the area.

Local community feast – annual celebration of Užupis Independence Day

It is tricky to reach the agreements, because there are three diverse groups of residents: those who were born in Užupis/Paupys, those who came there during soviet times and those who came to live there after Lithuanian independence. Those groups are similar in size, but they have very different financial resources, different education, they represent different nationalities and different generations. It is possible to say, that representatives of those groups speak in different languages not only in the literal sense of the word, but also in the figurative sense, so it still remains difficult to approach each others positions and perceptions.

Representatives of new comers group have the best income, good education, they belong to younger generation and are mostly Lithuanian. It is possible to define two types of new comers living styles (especially if they are single persons). Some of them appreciate material wealth and consumers’ approach, economic profit, prestige and various entertainment. The other are more idealistic oriented to cultural values: quietness, peace, art, historic urban environment and architecture, unique landscape, open community, etc.

1.1. Type of the area    1.3. Enterprise sector

 

ENTRUST is a research project supported by the European Commission under the Fifth Framework RTD Programme and contributing to the implementation of the
Key Action 4; “City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage" within the Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development thematic programme
Contract n°: EVK4-CT-2001-20007