
Fig. 1.
Provincial capital cities in 1975–1998.
Table 1.
Cities covered by the study: number of buildings, location of centres, DSM/DTM resources used.
| City | Number of buildings | Centres coordinates [PUWG1922] | DSM | DTM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X | Y | Date | Grid | Date | Grid | ||
| Biała Podlaska | 15,099 | 782432.0 | 471095.0 | 2023-09-27 | 1.0 | 2023-09-27 | 0.5 |
| Bielsko-Biała | 34,949 | 503072.0 | 217090.0 | 2024-04-30 | 1.0 | 2024-04-30 | 0.5 |
| Chełm | 11,902 | 812873.0 | 372397.0 | 2023-09-28 | 1.0 | 2023-09-28 | 0.5 |
| Ciechanów | 9954 | 608917.0 | 558612.0 | 2024-08-15 | 1.0 | 2023-09-10 | 0.5 |
| Częstochowa | 48,958 | 507974.0 | 327241.0 | 2024-04-29 | 1.0 | 2024-04-29 | 0.5 |
| Elbląg | 12,779 | 525705.0 | 699419.0 | 2023-09-06 | 1.0 | 2023-09-06 | 0.5 |
| Jelenia Góra | 13,914 | 270472.0 | 342438.0 | 2024-07-06 | 1.0 | 2024-07-06 | 0.5 |
| Kalisz | 19,985 | 437179.0 | 433287.0 | 2024-09-04 | 1.0 | 2024-09-04 | 0.5 |
| Konin | 13,491 | 449103.0 | 483132.0 | 2024-09-01 | 1.0 | 2024-09-01 | 0.5 |
| Koszalin | 14,876 | 316198.0 | 706579.0 | 2024-09-23 | 1.0 | 2024-09-23 | 0.5 |
| Krosno | 11,593 | 699356.0 | 206596.0 | 2024-05-27 | 1.0 | 2023-05-01 | 0.5 |
| Legnica | 12,305 | 301731.0 | 375047.0 | 2024-03-26 | 1.0 | 2024-03-26 | 0.5 |
| Leszno | 13,804 | 332962.0 | 444684.0 | 2024-09-04 | 1.0 | 2024-09-04 | 0.5 |
| Łomża | 9073 | 705858.0 | 594847.0 | 2024-06-27 | 1.0 | 2023-10-03 | 0.5 |
| Nowy Sącz | 19,009 | 622104.0 | 196668.0 | 2024-06-21 | 1.0 | 2023-05-01 | 0.5 |
| Ostrołęka | 9834 | 671859.0 | 582960.0 | 2024-07-20 | 1.0 | 2023-10-03 | 0.5 |
| Piła | 10,567 | 348636.0 | 589686.0 | 2024-09-17 | 1.0 | 2024-09-17 | 0.5 |
| Piotrków Trybunalski | 16,758 | 548400.0 | 393745.0 | 2024-04-09 | 1.0 | 2024-04-09 | 0.5 |
| Płock | 18,033 | 546460.0 | 520109.0 | 2023-09-12 | 1.0 | 2023-09-12 | 0.5 |
| Przemyśl | 9518 | 771263.0 | 219576.0 | 2024-06-16 | 1.0 | 2023-09-05 | 0.5 |
| Radom | 41,120 | 648989.0 | 395108.0 | 2023-09-09 | 1.0 | 2023-09-09 | 0.5 |
| Siedlce | 14,560 | 724350.0 | 483060.0 | 2023-09-08 | 1.0 | 2023-09-08 | 0.5 |
| Sieradz | 10,664 | 481865.0 | 414249.0 | 2024-04-27 | 1.0 | 2024-04-27 | 0.5 |
| Skierniewice | 12,131 | 578483.0 | 455118.0 | 2024-03-31 | 1.0 | 2024-03-31 | 0.5 |
| Słupsk | 10,096 | 372448.0 | 735424.0 | 2024-10-12 | 1.0 | 2024-10-12 | 0.5 |
| Suwałki | 10,633 | 756659.0 | 700035.0 | 2024-05-28 | 1.0 | 2023-09-16 | 0.5 |
| Tarnobrzeg | 10,427 | 689165.0 | 304200.0 | 2024-06-30 | 1.0 | 2023-05-01 | 0.5 |
| Tarnów | 19,605 | 642418.0 | 240254.0 | 2024-06-15 | 1.0 | 2023-09-06 | 0.5 |
| Wałbrzych | 13,297 | 308432.0 | 325626.0 | 2024-04-08 | 1.0 | 2024-04-08 | 0.5 |
| Włocławek | 16,478 | 504877.0 | 532766.0 | 2024-09-07 | 1.0 | 2024-09-07 | 0.5 |
| Zamość | 11,158 | 800071.0 | 325303.0 | 2023-09-04 | 1.0 | 2023-09-04 | 0.5 |
Table 2.
Average building heights in former provincial cities in Poland.
| City | Average building height within radius Z from traditional city centre | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 km | 2 km | 3 km | 5 km | Total | |
| Legnica | 14.20 | 11.59 | 10.87 | 10.44 | 10.40 |
| Bielsko-Biała | 13.07 | 10.97 | 10.40 | 9.31 | 9.09 |
| Częstochowa | 12.07 | 10.39 | 9.50 | 8.84 | 8.83 |
| Elbląg | 11.73 | 11.07 | 10.60 | 10.22 | 9.99 |
| Wałbrzych | 11.72 | 10.68 | 10.21 | 9.66 | 9.88 |
| Kalisz | 11.69 | 9.40 | 9.00 | 8.52 | 8.31 |
| Przemyśl | 11.58 | 10.15 | 9.48 | 9.06 | 9.05 |
| Słupsk | 11.26 | 9.36 | 9.18 | 9.06 | 9.06 |
| Tarnów | 11.26 | 10.04 | 9.37 | 8.95 | 8.93 |
| Koszalin | 11.11 | 9.60 | 9.27 | 8.83 | 8.71 |
| Płock | 10.94 | 10.26 | 9.45 | 9.57 | 9.16 |
| Jelenia Góra | 10.86 | 10.12 | 10.01 | 9.62 | 9.28 |
| Piła | 10.79 | 9.43 | 8.73 | 8.49 | 8.45 |
| Włocławek | 10.50 | 9.44 | 9.16 | 8.90 | 8.73 |
| Tarnobrzeg | 10.48 | 9.36 | 8.53 | 7.86 | 7.68 |
| Siedlce | 10.25 | 8.89 | 8.86 | 8.79 | 8.79 |
| Radom | 9.99 | 9.90 | 9.50 | 8.80 | 8.45 |
| Ciechanów | 9.91 | 8.74 | 8.49 | 8.32 | 8.31 |
| Leszno | 9.87 | 8.41 | 7.92 | 7.88 | 7.88 |
| Suwałki | 9.73 | 8.38 | 8.83 | 8.75 | 8.84 |
| Łomża | 9.70 | 9.70 | 9.28 | 8.92 | 8.92 |
| Ostrołęka | 9.61 | 9.01 | 9.16 | 9.13 | 9.10 |
| Chełm | 9.43 | 8.28 | 8.00 | 7.99 | 8.16 |
| Piotrków Trybunalski | 9.36 | 8.63 | 8.57 | 8.38 | 8.37 |
| Zamość | 9.30 | 8.57 | 8.29 | 8.18 | 8.18 |
| Nowy Sącz | 9.29 | 9.02 | 8.64 | 8.34 | 8.10 |
| Krosno | 8.87 | 8.57 | 8.26 | 7.90 | 7.87 |
| Skierniewice | 8.41 | 7.80 | 7.74 | 7.63 | 7.71 |
| Sieradz | 8.13 | 8.15 | 8.05 | 7.73 | 7.70 |
| Biała Podlaska | 7.85 | 8.22 | 7.81 | 7.62 | 7.62 |
| Konin | 7.41 | 7.82 | 8.24 | 7.82 | 8.70 |

Fig. 2.
Visualisations of Zamość developed using the compiled data.

Fig. 3.
Jelenia Góra – subsequent stages of model development.

Fig. 4.
Average building heights in former provincial cities in Poland in relation to distance from the city centre.

Fig. 5.
Clustering by average building height profile of former provincial cities based on the k-means method.
Table 3.
Classification of cities into clusters.
| Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 |
|---|---|
| Biała Podlaska | Bielsko-Biała |
| Chełm | Częstochowa |
| Ciechanów | Elbląg |
| Konin | Jelenia Góra |
| Krosno | Kalisz |
| Leszno | Koszalin |
| Łomża | Legnica |
| Nowy Sącz | Piła |
| Ostrołęka | Płock |
| Piotrków Trybunalski | Przemyśl |
| Siedlce | Radom |
| Sieradz | Słupsk |
| Skierniewice | Tarnów |
| Suwałki | Wałbrzych |
| Tarnobrzeg | Włocławek |
| Zamość |

Fig. 6.
Spatial distribution of former provincial cities based on cluster analysis.
Table 4.
Selected measures and indicators used to assess former provincial cities based on Statistics Poland Local Data Bank.
| Cities | 2024 | 2024 | 2023/2024 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Indicator/measure | |||||
| Biała Podlaska | 53.89 | 1090.9 | 98.97 | 2363.87 | 5676 |
| Bielsko-Biała | 164.32 | 1320.4 | 99.13 | 3472.70 | 6783 |
| Chełm | 56.43 | 1411.9 | 98.64 | 2159.48 | 5412 |
| Ciechanów | 41.47 | 1265.2 | 99.35 | 2605.48 | 4913 |
| Częstochowa | 203.63 | 1274.8 | 98.86 | 2755.99 | 6165 |
| Elbląg | 112.05 | 1403.8 | 99.23 | 2260.65 | 6282 |
| Jelenia Góra | 74.19 | 678.8 | 98.76 | 2482.03 | 5515 |
| Kalisz | 91.96 | 1325.5 | 98.73 | 3031.36 | 5795 |
| Konin | 66.10 | 803.2 | 98.55 | 3105.66 | 5222 |
| Koszalin | 105.26 | 997.1 | 99.73 | 2728.05 | 6723 |
| Krosno | 43.59 | 975.0 | 98.93 | 2704.86 | 5849 |
| Legnica | 90.82 | 1613.5 | 98.77 | 2790.33 | 5352 |
| Leszno | 59.52 | 1868.2 | 99.12 | 2911.35 | 5639 |
| Łomża | 59.26 | 1814.0 | 99.25 | 2353.31 | 6227 |
| Nowy-Sącz | 79.82 | 1385.8 | 99.33 | 3085.63 | 6233 |
| Ostrołęka | 47.70 | 1425.5 | 98.90 | 3257.25 | 5868 |
| Saw | 69.38 | 765.7 | 99.04 | 2789.20 | 5523 |
| Piotrków Trybunalski | 66.02 | 981.9 | 99.25 | 2759.79 | 5639 |
| Płock | 110.02 | 1249.6 | 98.95 | 5845.95 | 6276 |
| Przemyśl | 55.29 | 1197.6 | 98.64 | 2088.54 | 5030 |
| Radom | 193.78 | 1733.2 | 98.86 | 2482.73 | 6271 |
| Siedlce | 74.78 | 2347.1 | 103.43 | 2925.97 | 7703 |
| Sieradz | 38.30 | 747.7 | 98.89 | 2709.07 | 5474 |
| Skierniewice | 45.12 | 1304.1 | 99.87 | 2873.80 | 6636 |
| Słupsk | 84.77 | 1607.3 | 99.15 | 2357.74 | 5693 |
| Suwałki | 68.14 | 1040.2 | 99.87 | 2466.38 | 6500 |
| Tarnobrzeg | 43.22 | 506.1 | 98.88 | 1988.25 | 5418 |
| Tarnów | 102.12 | 1411.1 | 99.02 | 2781.23 | 5877 |
| Walbrzych | 98.75 | 1166.1 | 98.46 | 2055.25 | 4161 |
| Włocławek | 99.47 | 1169.0 | 98.67 | 2994.53 | 5403 |
| Zamość | 57.52 | 1896.3 | 98.78 | 2185.77 | 6555 |
1 Note: 1 – Population in thousands, 2 – Population per 1 km2, 3 – Decline/growth in population (in %), 4 – Wealth per capita (G-index of basic tax revenue per capita of the municipality adopted for the calculation of the compensatory subsidy for 2024), 5 – Average price per 1 m2 of dwellings sold under market transactions.
Table 5.
Relationship between building height of former provincial capitals in Poland and selected socio-economic indicators in 2024 – based on the Spearman rank order correlation.
| Indicator/measure | Average city height within administrative borders [W1] | Average city height within 1 km radius from conventional central point [W2] |
|---|---|---|
| Population in thousands [Z1] | 0.597 | 0.706 |
| Population per 1 km2 [Z2] | 0.205 | 0.158 |
| Population decrease/growth in % [Z3] | –0.053 | –0.085 |
| Wealth per capita [Z4] | 0.074 | 0.005 |
| Average price per m2 of dwellings [Z5] | 0.047 | 0.024 |