Perm FROM IDEOLOGY TO REALITY
Oscar Buson Guillaume de Morsier
THEORETICAL PART OF THE MASTER IN ARCHITECTURE
Under the supervision of: Professor Kees Christiaanse, ETH Zürich Professor Jacques Lévy, EPF Lausanne Professor Jacques Lucan, EPF Lausanne Professor Laurent Stalder, ETH Zürich Béatrice Ferrari, EPF Lausanne Christian Salewski, ETH Zürich
ETH Zürich / EPF Lausanne January 2009
4
Contents
Acknowledgements Introduction
7 9
1. Situation Perm 1.1 Society 1.2 Economy
13 15 23
2. Planned Perm 2.1 Actors 2.2 Property 2.3 Policies 2.4 Microrayon 2.5 Housing
29 31 37 41 47 53
3. Generic Perm 3.1 From Traditional to City Centre 3.2 Constructivism 3.3 Socialist Realism 3.4. Khruschovkas 3.5 Improved Floor Plans 3.6 Reczcling
57 59 71 79 95 105 115
4. Specific Perm 4.1 Perm Multilayer 4.2 Collision Strips 4.3 Typology
129 131 147 171
5. Strategy 5.1 Strip Strategy 5.2 Islands
173 175 183
Bibliography
189
5
6
We would like to thank a number of people who supported us in a professional as in a human way during these six months of research. Professor Kees Christiaanse for allowing us to realise a work that we expected so much. Masha Pidodnia, Olaf Gerson, Konstantin Kasstrianakis, and all the Team of KCAP for their help during our times spent in Rotterdam. Konstantin Kursilev and the team of Perm 2020 for their help during our stay in Perm. Tatiana Gulyaeva, Nadia Poponina, Swetlana Emeljanova Natalia Orisovia, Angelika Kazanbaeva and Stanislas Mekhonoshin for making our Russian experience more easy and friendly. The professors of the Perm State University and their students who invited us in their classes to talk about their city. Sergei Shamarin for welcoming us in his office. And Carla Smyth who almost collapsed in the task of making our words more understandables.
7
8
Introduction
Perm is a Russian city that was designed as every other Russian city. From its foundation, three centuries ago, until today, the city has been centrally planned in order to match the ambitious objectives of this powerful country. Walking through Perm is a journey into a catalogue of Russian architecture; from the first standardized wooden houses built under Peter I to the massive panel housing buildings of the Brezhnev era. The whole city speckled with typical landmarks, such as a neo-classical opera house, a theatre, some palaces of culture and several churches. A few urban typologies dominate the city, each of them reflecting the ideology of their time and manifesting the idea of generic. Fascinated by these pervasive typologies being the frame of the city, and at the same time the collapsing shelters of the whole Russian population, we started our research on the characteristics and the foundation of these urban concepts. Apparently very simple, these principles show their limits in Perm, where parts of the city cannot be claimed as belonging to a particular generic typology. These failures of the system, located in key places, reveal another part of Perm. Left over, invisible to the travellers they are characteristic of the city. Noticing at the same time the precarious nature of these places, as well as their potential at a city scale, we have chosen to focus our research precisely on these areas. From the perestroika until now, the Russian population has undergone radical change. Privatisation and the market economy are the most important, having polarised consequences. On one hand, society has rapidly shifted from a socialist system to a capitalist one, whilst parts of the system, especially urban planning and the building industry, remain in quasi perfect continuity with the pre-perestroika times. The project will try to give a rational answer to Perm’s actual needs, and fill the gap left by inadequate provision.
9
INDUSTRIES AND SATELLITES WITHIN THE PERM TERRITORY, SCALE 1:200’000
Zaozere Golovanovo Levsino fertilisers
Frunze
Gaiva
Kamsky
wires chemistry
Nalimisha paper chemistry
Akulova panel housing
Kurija
military Centre machine Parkovy Danilikha wires
Zakamsk weapon destruction
Vishka weapon machines Motovilika
Gorky Sadovi
Jubilejni aircraft Balatovo rocket Vladimirsky automatics Khrokalheva
Lukoil
URBAN FABRIC INDUSTRIES
10
Lijadi
INDUSTRIES AND SATELLITES WITHIN AND AROUND THE CITY CENTRE, SCALE 1:100’000
Ka
m
Motovilika
a
Motovilika ya ka a als ev ur bed le
Molotov’s centre Meshkov city gallery Holy Trinity
Ural v.g.
nue
ha
Gorki
kom. prom.
Engine factory
Balatovo
Vladimirsky.
Sputnik
Khrokalheva
Lukoil
URBAN FABRIC INDUSTRIES
11
Sadovi
Gorki p.
ave
ilik
ha
ky
ols
Dan
hik
aya
som
irsk
Jeleznodoroshnij Parkovi
Gorki
os
sib
len
Razguliay
ina
kom
aya hesk istisc mun lenina esplanade kom
opera
Ye g
Kam a
Engine factory
12
1. Situation Perm
13
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
St. Petersburg
Moscow
Yaroslavl Nizhny Novgorod
Perm
Voronez Kazan Ulyanovsk Tolyatti Izhevsk Saratov Ufa Yekaterinburg Rostov Volgograd Samara Kraznodar Chelyabinsk Omsk
Khabarovsk Novosibirsk
Krasnoyarsk
Barnaul
REPUBLICS
Irkutsk
Vladivostok
OBLASTS OKRUGS KRAIS POPULATION OF THE 25 BIGGEST RUSSIAN CITIES. SOURCE: RUSSIA STATS 2006.
St. Petersburg
Moscow
Yaroslavl Nizhny Novgorod
Perm
Voronez Kazan Ulyanovsk Tolyatti Izhevsk Saratov Ufa Yekaterinburg Rostov Samara Volgograd Kraznodar Chelyabinsk Omsk
Khabarovsk Novosibirsk
Krasnoyarsk
Barnaul
Irkutsk
Vladivostok
1 MIO. INHABITANTS DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS OF THE 25 BIGGEST RUSSIAN CITIES BETWEEN 1989 AND 2006. SOURCE: RUSSIA STATS.
St. Petersburg
Moscow
Yaroslavl Nizhny Novgorod
Perm
Voronez Kazan Ulyanovsk Tolyatti Izhevsk Saratov Ufa Yekaterinburg Rostov Volgograd Samara Kraznodar Chelyabinsk Omsk
Khabarovsk Novosibirsk Barnaul
GROWTH SHRINKING
14
Krasnoyarsk Irkutsk
Vladivostok
1.1 Society
POPULATION
CITY BIRTHDAY, VIEW OF THE ESPLANADE, MAY 2008
Perm’s population was 1,001,653 in 2002 (last census) and is currently approximately 990,000. Among other Russian cities, Perm, in term of population can be situated in the 3rd row of Russian cities, behind the two metropolises, Moscow and St. Petersburg, and the regional centers such as Nizhniy Novgorod, Yekaterinburg or Novosibirsk. The demographic situation of the Perm region is characterized by a constant decrease of population. From the last census of the Soviet Union in 1989 until 2006, the population decreased by 10%. This trend is comparable to the Russian average. Since 2005, the growth ratio is still negative but stabilized at a level of -7.1%. This population decrease is mainly due to an high death rate and a relatively short live expectancy. In the Perm region, the average life expectancy of men is 56 years, and for women 72 years. In Russia those averages are 59 and 73 years respectively.
15
DEMOGRAPHIC EVOLUTION OF PERM.
1’100’000 1’000’000 900’000 800’000 700’000 600’000 500’000 400’000 300’000 200’000 100’000 1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
TRANSITION
In the 1990’s Russia’s economy changed into a market system. This has had strong repercussions on society and the development of cities. The privatization taking place in 1991 and the lack of job opportunities lead to an increased social polarization. This is recognizable by phenomena such as suburbanization, gentrification and homelessness (Andrusz, 2004). In Perm, the decade following the collapse of the iron curtain is marked by the decline of industry. Defense is not a priority anymore in Russia and the military industry, former major source of income of the city is partly privatized and forced to reduce its production. The effective production of the industry remains a mystery in Perm were citizen often don’t know what is being manufactured behind walls and fences surrounding the omnipresent factories. To face the crisis, former employees have to find new activities. The service sector, almost absent in the soviet city, is the principal being developed. This shift in people’s professional activities has spatial repercussions. Housing was planned and organized by industry in order to host the workers and their families. Housing settlements were thus almost always related to one particular industry and located close to it. Now, housing and industry have been privatized and people are no longer located close to their workplace anymore. Society is becoming more mobile and a spatial polarization is also recognizable. A large part of the population commutes every day to the city centre where a major part of their activities such as work, leisure or shopping is concentrated. A small but continually growing part of the population is taking advantage of this privatization. Often at the head of influent enterprises, this elite has an economic power, but also a political control. At the same time, the number of homeless people is also growing. Rejected in the city outskirts, they are living in abandoned houses or between central heating pipes. An significant number of orphans are also living in the streets, abandoned by their parents and the alcoholism is said to be the major reason. Criminality also remains a problem in Perm where thefts are often organized by adults and undertaken by adolescents. Drug consumption is also growing. In isolated parts of the city, syringes can be found everywhere on the streets. They mainly served for injection of barbituric, apparently the most widespread drug. Around drug stores, broken bottles of cheap medical alcohol at ninety percent can also be found in a great number and serve as extreme alcohol consumption. 16
17
GERMAN BUSES OWNED BY PRIVATE TRANSPORT COMPANIES.
TRANSPORTS
In Perm, the amount of cars has increased 2,2 times within the last ten years (Perm Administration, 2008). This is now the major means of transportation, enabling an significant part of the population to commute from dormitory areas to work in the centre or to leave the noisy and stressful city centre for more spacious and affordable flats in the city satellites or for cottages with garden in the outskirts, sometimes located in gated communities. The car is often a need due to the dispersed location of living areas, but it is also a new symbol of social success. As the housing offer and diversity is very poor, the car has become a tool of representation. The Porsche Cayenne, the Hummer and the Range Rover have replaced the formerly omnipresent Lada. Public transport is therefore losing its importance, even if still very cheap (one token cost between 9 and 10 rubles). Between 2004 and 2008 the number of passengers per year transported by trams and trolleys has shifted from 123 million to 6o millions. The buses were privatized in 2005 and now more than 110 companies share the market. Only electric transport as trams and trolleys remain property of the city. These companies are buying second hand buses in Europe, mainly in Germany or Switzerland, and it is common to see buses in the street with a route destination like Festplatz or Hauptbahnhof. UBIQUITOUS ALL TERRAIN CAR.
18
LEISURE AND SHOPPING
Brand new shopping malls are selling goods at equivalent prices to European ones and are thus still reserved to small part of the population. They are located in the city centre, and replace the outdated palaces of culture and open air markets. There, video games salons and fast food restaurants replace workers clubs and the canteen, formerly located between the industry and the housing settlements. The shopping malls, often open 24/24, provide a wide range of activities, such as shopping, sports, cinemas, night clubs, restaurants and so on. They are housing an increasing range of activities in one place, aseptic and climatised, in rupture with the often harsh outdoor environment. They are the place were the youth spends their free time, open air markets and streets being too dirty and cold (PSU, 2008). At the same time, in the old city centre, streets are starting to be gentrified. Cafés and restaurants with thematic interiors, cosy atmospheres and cosmopolitan menus as well as fashion stores from Paris, Milan or London are opening. One of the student’s favourite places to go is the newly opened café Coff y Citi, designed in Moroccan style, offering shishas and latte macchiatos where Fashion TV is diffused on wide screen. Western lifestyle is becoming the reference for a percentage of the population, but the very expensive prices make this reserved to an elite. Goods are still for a large percentage bought at the market were prices are cheaper. The biggest one is the central market. Everything can be found there, but it has the reputation of being dangerous and hosting mafia and is thus not appreciated at all. The new malls are seen as the best alternative and even if still not affordable are more than welcomed by the population. This success gives them the position of pioneers in the city’s development. Where they are planned, land becomes attractive, investors start planning procedures in order to buy and price of the land increases.
AVERAGE WAGE CHARGES IN A CENTRAL FLAT BIER IN CLUB VETTER HAIR DRESSER CHARGES IN A COTTAGE BIER IN BAR COFFEE CITY OPERA, BALLET KG APPLES IN VIVAT SOUP IN NORMAL RESTAURANT BIER IN VIVAT CIGARRETS TRAM TICKET BUS TICKET
19
13000 RUB 3000 RUB 500 RUB 400 RUB 300 RUB 150 RUB 150 RUB 80 RUB 40 RUB 40 RUB 40 RUB 10 RUB 9 RUB
20
WAGES AND INCOMES EVOLUTION. SOURCE: PERM ADMINISTRATION.
20.7
21 19
Thousand of rubles
17 15 13
12.4
11 9 7 5
Monthly income per capita cash
3
Average wages
1 2000
2002
2004
2006
JOBS
Since the 1998 crisis, the Russian economy has grown dramatically. The average GDP growth was about 10%. Wages increased as well, but not at a sufficient rate to satisfy the needs of the households. Other sources from the State, from home production or from the informal sector, started to contribute an important percentage to household incomes. It is now very common in Russia to combine jobs with independent activities, especially in the service sector (leisure, retail, real estate) and this explains the increasing difference between wages and income. In Perm the process took place later than in the rest of the Country but has now reached the national average. Almost 50% of household incomes are now made of sources other than wages (The World Bank, 2004).
21
FOUNDATION OF MAJOR RUSSIAN CITIES
St. Petersburg
Yaroslavl
Moscow
Nizhny Novgorod
Perm
Voronez Kazan Ulyanovsk Tolyatti Izhevsk Saratov Ufa Rostov Yekaterinburg Samara Volgograd Kraznodar Chelyabinsk Omsk
Khabarovsk Novosibirsk
Krasnoyarsk
Barnaul
BEFORE XVII
Irkutsk
Vladivostok
XVII XVIII XIX LARGEST CITIES CLOSED DURING THE SOVIET TIMES.
St. Petersburg
Yaroslavl
Moscow
Nizhny Novgorod
Perm
Voronez Kazan Ulyanovsk Tolyatti Izhevsk Saratov Ufa Yekaterinburg Rostov Samara Volgograd Kraznodar Chelyabinsk Omsk
Khabarovsk Novosibirsk
Krasnoyarsk
Barnaul
Irkutsk
Vladivostok
CLOSED CITIES PERM CONNECTIONS BY RAIL, WATER AND AIR.
White See
Baltic See St. Petersburg
Norilsk Moscow
Frankfurt
Yaroslavl Nizhny Novgorod
Perm Rostov Kraznodar Black Sochi See
Yekaterinburg Khabarovsk Omsk Caspian See Yerevan
WATER
Surgut Nizhnevarlovsk
Novosibirsk
Krasnoyarsk Irkutsk
Baku
Dushanbe
AIR RAIL
22
Vladivostok
1.2 Economy
WALLPAINTING IN URALSKAYA STREET SHOWING URAL’S NATURAL RESSOURCES
Perm, the main city of the region and administrative centre has an economy based on industry. Its strategic location, close to natural resources of the Ural and to major transportation roads, has always remained the major reason for its development. Its proximity to the Kama River, a tributary of the Volga make it connected to the resources of the region but also to the White Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea for export purposes. The Trans-Siberian railway line also links the city to Moscow and St. Petersburg on the West, and Siberia and China on the East.
23
PERM KRAI, TRANSPORT SYSTEM ROADS AIR RAIL REGIONAL RAIL
Cherdyn
Krasnovishersk
Gainy
Kosa
Solikamsk
Kochevo Usolie
Beresniki Aleksanrovsk Kizel
Kudymar
Yusva
Gubakha Gremyachinsk
Ilyinsky Dobryanka
Siva
Gornozavods Chusovoy
Karagay Vereshagino Krasnokamsk Ocher
Nytva
Lysva
Perm
Okhansk
B.Sosnova
Kungur Osa
Kishert Suskun
Elovo Barda
Uinskoe
Chaikovsky
Kueda
Chernushka
Oktyabrsky
URAL INDUSTRIALISATION
The Ural basin has been exploited since the end of the XVI century for its resources in minerals. About fifty elements of the Mendeleyev table could be found in the Ural Mountains (Pavel, 2001) . The first important industrial developments took place under Peter I, in the XVIII century, when the region was annexed and new industrial cities were built. Perm was founded in 1723. Copper and steel smelters were installed along the Kama River. In 1863, they were replaced by a canon factory. By the end of the XIX century, the plant was extended and its name changed to “JS Company Motovilikhinskiye Zavody� which is now still producing military equipment (State Archives of Perm Region, 1998). Moreover, Perm at that time was connected to Yekaterinburg and Nizhny Tagil through the first mining road railway in the Ural. This central position played a big role in the development of the city.
24
VIEW FROM THE VILLAGE OF GORKI OF THE PLANTS ON THE KAMA RIVER AND PERM, 1910, PROKUDIN-GORSKY
WAR INDUSTRY
The second industrial development of the Ural basin took place during the Stalin era and was the result of the first five-year plan (19281932), while the existing industrial sites were developed and new ones were planned. In the Perm region, industry was mainly specialised in machines and mineral transformation. This growth called for a very large number of workers, mainly coming from the Ural region. A part of specialized workforces came from Moscow or even from Western countries. At the beginning of the five-year plan, these were 42’000 working in Ural industries, and five years later 305’000 (Pavel, 2001). Gulags were established at that time in the Perm region as well as in Siberia. They played a key role in the industrialisation of these two regions. Prisoners were brought there and were the main workforce in the colonization of these territories. 1941, during the invasion of the German army, an significant percentage of industry from the Western part of USSR was moved to the Ural region in order to ensure a continuous production of defense ORIGINAL COLLAGE FOR THE ENGINE FACTORY IN PERM, 1950’S
25
PERM KRAI, MAP OF GULAGS GULAGS
150
More than Gulags in the Perm region with about 150’000 prisoners representing about one-third of the workig population.
Cherdyn
Krasnovishersk
Gainy
Kosa
Solikamsk
Kochevo Usolie
Beresniki Aleksanrovsk Kizel
Kudymar
Yusva
Gubakha Gremyachinsk
Ilyinsky Dobryanka
Siva
Gornozavods Chusovoy
Karagay Vereshagino Krasnokamsk Ocher
Okhansk
B.Sosnova
GULAG WORKERS WORKING IN THE FOREST.
Nytva
Lysva
Perm Kungur
Osa
Kishert Suskun
Elovo Barda
Uinskoe
Chaikovsky
Kueda
Chernushka
Oktyabrsky
GULAG WORKERS CUTTING TREES.
material. One half of the displaced industries (about 700) were rehoused in the Ural region. The Ural region took thus a fundamental role in the war. About 40% of the weapons sent to the front were manufactured there. This strategic importance leads to the closing of an important number of cities having a key role for the war. Perm was one of them, having a restrained access and remaining erased of the maps from the war until the perestroika. Directly after the war, the region of Perm benefited from the discovery of important resources of oil and gas. At the same time, the extraction of minerals and the military industries continued to be developed to reach a climax of production in the (Pavel, 2001). GLOBAL AND LOCAL INDUSTRY
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the defense industry was reduced to a minimum. In Perm, the main industrial sites remained active but with very low production. A significant number of employees were still working there, more assuming a presence than an active role. In 26
PERM KRAI, NUMBER OF INHABITANTS 100’000 INHABITANTS
Cherdyn
Krasnovishersk
Gainy
Kosa
Solikamsk
Kochevo Usolie
Beresniki Aleksanrovsk Kizel
Kudymar
Yusva
Gubakha Gremyachinsk
Ilyinsky Dobryanka
Siva
Gornozavods Chusovoy
Karagay Vereshagino Krasnokamsk Ocher
Nytva
Lysva
Perm
Okhansk
B.Sosnova
Kungur Osa
Kishert Suskun
Elovo Barda
Uinskoe
Chaikovsky
Kueda
Chernushka
Oktyabrsky
order to become more competitive a small part of the formerly State owned companies were divided in smaller structures which are currently undergoing significant growth (Kastrissianakis, 2008). Nowadays, oil and gas resources remain the chief source of income for the city, followed by the chemical and petrochemical industry. The defense industry is now losing its importance except in specific fields as the engine industry. At the same time, a new type of company is appearing in the region. These are called small innovative businesses and operate between research and industry, mostly in the field of polymers and composite materials. These start-ups are quickly emerging while former state industries are shrinking, leaving soon important industrial voids within the city core (Perm Region, 2005).
27
28
2.Planned Perm After the Perestroika, the privatization of the land forced the government to set up legislations. They were created in all the fields except for planning. Between 1992 and 1998, this lack of legal framework resulted in a very chaotic development were personal interests took the priority over public interest. The building policies remained the same and the developments took place in a quasi perfect continuity with the soviet times. Today, the city is much more independant and has the possibility to intervene in its development but at the same time, always bigger part of planning are left to private investors. In the last decade, the non planned has successed to the hyper planned, ironically in an almost perfect continuity.
29
30
2.1 Actors
GEORG WILHELM DE GENNIN (1676 1750), RUSSIAN MILITARY AND GERMAN ENGINEER. SPECIALIST IN THE FIELD OF MINING AND METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY, HE FOUNDED PERM IN 1723.
VIEW FROM KOMSOMOLSKY PROSPEKT, PERM, XIX CENTURY
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
During the Russian Empire, the important extension of territory asked for a great number of specialists. Thus Western architects, engineers and planners were called to take part in the construction of the empire. They brought their knowledge and experience taking important positions. The planning system was at that time highly centralized and the plans for all new cities were drawn in Moscow and then in St Petersburg, mostly by architects who went to European architecture schools or even by Western architects themselves. Peter I introduced a set of rules for the city development and St Petersburg was built following those, as an example for the construction of every new Russian cities (Engel, 2006). The construction of Perm is a perfect illustration of this scheme. Founded at the end of the reign of Peter I, in 1723, the plans were done in St Petersburg under the supervision of the Tsar and applied in Perm by local architects controlled by a German Governor (Perm City Archives, 2008). After the revolution, architects in Moscow had to face the challenge
31
CARL F. MODERAH (1747 - 1819), MILITARY ENGINEER AND STATESMAN OF GERMAN ORIGIN, PERMIAN GOVERNOR IN 1796 - 1811.
HANNES MEYER (1889–1954), SWISS ARCHITECT, SECOND DIRECTOR OF THE BAUHAUS FROM 1928 TO 1930. HE WORKED AS CHIEF ARCHITECT IN THE PLANNING OFFICE GOSGRAZHANSTROY IN MOSCOW, RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PLANNING OF NEW INDUSTRIAL CITIES.
of how to plan the city for the new socialist society. This socialist city had to break with the image of the western capitalist city, highly industrialized, unhealthy and dense. The exchange remained at that time very important between Soviet architects and Western architects. The architects of the Bauhaus working in Russia represent an example of East-West exchange. They were especially involved in the movement and played an important role in the debate of that time. Among them were Mart Stam, Ernst May, Hannes Meyer, Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius, which saw in the Soviet Union the possibility to realize their utopian ideas (Engel, 2006).
32
FEDERAL ACTORS
The new political system was based on a centralized planning established in Moscow. An important number of offices and institutes were created to organize the planning of the whole territory. Their roles and relationships were complex and remain quite unclear. The central planning done from Moscow had to reach the smaller scale in the most direct way. Thus, planning offices were created in different parts of the Soviet Union but still referring to Moscow for the major decisions. The following ones were some of the most important for the development of cities: GOSPLAN, the central office for economic planning, was responsible for the planning of the economy and had a control over the other ministries. It had the responsibility for the definition of the five years plans but their detailed management was left to the other ministries. GIPROGOR, the office for town planning, was responsible for the definition of most of the general plans. Those documents were following and reflecting the directions given by the five-year plans established by GOSPLAN. LenZNIIEP and LenNIIP were two sub-offices of GIPROGOR located in Leningrad and Novosibirsk playing an intermediate role. GOSSTROY, the state committee for construction, and GOSGRAZHANSTROY, the Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, were responsible for the entire town planning and architectural process. All building applications and town planning plans from the USSR had to be submitted there (Engel, 2006). STANDARDGORPROJEKT, the office for the planning of the industrial cities was responsible for the development of new industrial areas. During the first five years plan period (1928-1932) this office was commissioned to develop the industry in the Perm region. LOCAL ACTORS
In Perm industry was the main sector developed during the soviet times. Its status in term of planning was different from other cities in the sense that it was more autonomous. Industries were responsible for providing housing for its workers and thus were also responsible for their planning, construction and maintenance. The development of the settlements followed industrial development. Industries had to reach the objectives of the five years plans defined by GOSPLAN. In order to do this they planned workers settlements according to their needs, following the policies set up by offices such as GIPROGOR or STANDARDGORPROJEKT, and submitting planning permissions to GOSSTROY. The developments coming from the needs of the industries, at a local level, lead to a more chaotic development of the city, not being directly planned from Moscow as other cities were.
33
ADAPTATIONS
The responsibilities of those offices changed a lot during their existence and some are still in activity. GIPROGOR has been privatized and GOSSTROY remained active until 2008 when its functions were transferred to the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation. Even if the planning system in Russia has undergone several radical political changes, the administrative structure has always remained almost the same, even in the post-perestroika period. Current planning in Russia is still based on this system and is very difficult to adapt to the new economic forces now in place. The municipalities now have the responsibility for the most significant percentage of decisions relating to planning, while federal and regional levels issue guidelines. This transfer of responsibilities and the resulting vagueness are now the major problem that administrations have to face in setting up clear planning policies. PRESENT
In Russia, the beneficiary margin of investors on the price per square meter sold can reach 60% while in Switzerland the margin is around 7%.
In 1998, an overall framework was established for planning in Russia. But this framework is more an update of the former system of planning than a reform and cannot deal with the strength of the new system. The General Plan (GENPLAN) introduced during the soviet times still remains the most important document for city development. It is established at a local level under federal and regional guidance. Every city in Russia is required to have its own GENPLAN which has a life span of 20 to 30 years (Golubchikov, 2004). As very few cities had one at the end of the 90’s, a resolution was taken by the government that every city should define its plan for the horizon 2020 – 2030. Instead of having a strong policy on planning, the system is still based on a system of development control. There is a very complex system of control for building permission. In practice, it means that prior to making an application for building permission, a developer has to obtain technical approvals proving that the project is well detailed and organized. The number of approvals to be obtained by a developer vary from 50 to 250 depending on particular regions, the numbers of organizations to be consulted is more than 40 and the number of invoices is more than 70 (Golubchikov, 2004) . The complexity of this system and its time consumption for an indefinite result explain the omnipresence of big developers companies entertaining tight relationships with authorities. In Perm, the post-soviet planning started in 1992, but the directions taken by the plans were mainly based on the inherited principles of soviet planning. Thus, in 2008, a new structure was set up called Perm2020, commissioned to manage the planning of the city for the horizon 2020.
34
KIRIL PISAREV IS PRESIDENT OF PIK GROUP, THE FIRST HIGH-VOLUME HOUSING BUILDER IN RUSSIA. HE FOUNDED PIK IN 1991 AND IS NOW RANKED 160TH WORLD BILLIONAIRE BY FORBES.
35
SERFDOM, ABOLSISHED IN RUSSIA IN 1861.
COLLECTIVE PROPERTY, VILLAGE’S COMMUNE
INDIVIDUALISATION OF THE PROPERTY DURING THE 1917 REVOLUTION.
NATIONALISATION OF THE LAND FOLLOWING THE 1917 REVOLUTION.
1991, PRIVATISATION OF THE HOUSING STOCK.
ONGOING PROCESS OF PRIVATISATION OF THE LAND.
36
2.2 Property
FROM SERFDOM TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP
The State already had a great control over property during Imperial times and could easily confiscate or destroy it as he wanted. This strong policy, mainly applied in the cities enabled the expansion of the Empire. 1861, the tsar Alexander II started an important liberal reform in order to put an end to the feudal system on which the society was still based. This had an significant impact on land ownership. At that time the biggest part of the society was still composed of peasants either living on state lands or living on private lands. The abolition of serfdom freed them from their landlord and gave them access to land. The land was collectively owned by village’s commune, responsible for the distribution of the land. After the revolution of 1905, a decree enabled every peasant household to claim individual ownership of its land allotments. But the difficulties to apply this decree, in the reality, gave access to land ownership only to 20% of the peasants. In 1917, the majority of the peasants taking part to the revolution seized property from the landowners. RUSSIAN PAESANTS, PROKUDIN-GORSKY
37
INHABITANT OF A MICRORAYON MAINTENING A HOUSE FOR CHILDREN ON A PLAYGROUND.
0.132
rubles were the fixed rents in USSR per square meters of living space.
NATIONALISATION
In 1918, following the Marxist idea that land has no inherent value, private property was placed under state control. The Bolsheviks “nationalized� the industries, the banks and the housing stock, and by 1922, the government had taken over 40% of the living space in urban areas, leaving in private hands small structures as wooden houses and dachas (Matthews, M. 1976) . The proportion of state owned property reached 78% in 1989. The rents were fixed in Russia between 1927 and 1992 at 0.132 rubles per sqm of living space, although by 1990, the operation and maintenance costs reached an average of 15 rubles per sqm. Therefore, during the Soviet Union housing sector was always financed by the transfer of funds from other sectors such as industry. In 1989, Russian households devoted only 2.4% of their income to total housing payment (rents plus utilities) but over 3% to liquors and cigarettes (Renaud, 1995a). PRIVATISATION
A law on the privatization of housing was passed in July 1991. It established the right of a registered tenant occupying a state unit to become its owner with fully guaranteed property rights. Moscow and St Petersburg were quite fast in this process, especially because of their special autonomous status while other Russian cities had to deal with a much more complicated administrative structure and a lack of financial resources. Following this, the building industry was privatized in 1993 under the law of enterprise privatization. The ownership and control was in most cases transferred from ministerial authorities to managers (Renaud, 1995b). In terms of landownership, a law was already passed in 1990. Different types of property were defined as single family houses or agricultural land. The urban property rights remained quite vague until 1993 when a law was adopted recognising the full right to private land for any use (Renaud, 1995b). But the acquisition of land remaining in state ownership remained a complex process, especially for investors buying land for development. In order to facilitate the process, the land had to be transferred from the state and the regional ownership to the 38
municipalities. In Perm this process only started in 2002 and is very slow due to unclear laws for land transactions. Added to this, the difficulty in accessing land ownership is increased by the facts that a major part of the land potentially free for development is already in the hands of a restrained circle of companies, who failed in the process of acquisition and then block the subsequent procedures. Possible sites for developers within the city are mostly land occupied by dilapidated housing, and acquiring these sites is complicated because of the property rights and the problems of relocating inhabitants (Butler & Khakhalin, 2003). These are the main reasons that lead investors to negotiate plots of land located in the outskirts or in the city satellites, freed from all the constraints of the city centre. Nowadays, the city of Perm has started a new process for the distribution of landownership amongst individuals. In the already built-up areas, owners are now acquiring abstract parts of their plot. This process, aiming to open the land market up to individuals presents the disadvantage to increase the complexity of the acquisition process. The land acquisition will not longer be negotiated with the municipality, but directly with the owners of the plot. Individuals, now becoming landowners have the possibility to take an important role in the planning process. But the unclear definition of most of the spaces surrounding the buildings make their appropriation by the collective consciousness difficult. The clear concept of publicprivate separation doesn’t exist in the exteriors, the apartment, reduced to the minimum being until now the only private space. Within the Stalinist blocks or around Khrushovkas, semi-public spaces are being used, sometimes appropriated or even enclosed by inhabitants, but their legal relationship to them remained always unclear. Today, limits of property are being defined by the city administration but it doesn’t seem that this can radically change the culture of appropriation and collectivity shared around those spaces. Something has to be proposed beyond the abstract allotments of land taking place. SPONTANEOUS APPROPRIATION OF LAND AROUND A KHRUSHCHOVKA.
39
RIVERS AND FORESTS.
FORESTS URBAN AREAS INDUSTRIES
BUILDING TYPOLOGIES WITHIN THE PERM TERRITORY.
TRADITIONAL TYPOLOGY NEO-CLASSICAL TYPOLOGY REVOLUTIONARY TYPOLOGY STALINIST BARAKS TYPOLOGY STALINIST HOUSES TYPOLOGY KHRUSHCHOVKAS TYPOLOGY IMPROVED FLOOR PLANS TYPOLOGY COMPOSITE TYPOLOGY
40
2.3 Policies
RUSSIAN COLONISATION
CONSTRUCTION OF KHRUSHCHOVKAS.
The resolutions taken by the planning offices during the Russian Empire and the Soviet regime were quite similar in the sense that in both systems they were taken in order to improve their territorial expansion. During Imperial times there were strict norms for town planning and State institutions had to agree on every building and development plan (French, 1995). Thus the State had a strong influence on the development of cities. There was a constant need for new buildings due to the Empire expansion and to the destructions caused by fires. This begged an improvement of construction techniques in order to build faster. The prefabrication of wooden housings was improved, new techniques were introduced and the size of the buildings limited. Under Katherine II, the government went further with the idea of prefabrication with the definition of standards for residential and public building types (Engel 2006).
41
NIEVSKY PROSPECT, ST. PETERSBURG.
KOMSOMOLSKY PROSPECT, PERM.
REVOLUTIONARY IDEOLOGIES
After the Revolution, architects of planning offices had to face the challenge of formalising the ideas of the revolution. In order to stay economical, they concentrated their efforts on public buildings, supposed to act as social condensers (Kopp, 1967). In 1928, architects and planners had to define the way how cities should be spatially developed. This lead to an important debate in Moscow with the Desurbanists in opposition to the Urbanists. The Desurbanists were following the concept of the green city, influenced by the garden city of Ebenezer Howard. They wanted to implement the Marxist concept of dissolution between town and country, leading to a dispersed distribution of the population over the country. Among them were Moissej J. Ginzburg and Ernst May. Ginzburg’s motto was: “not green in the city, but the city in green plantations”. (Andrusz, 1987) The Urbanists were differing with the latter in the sense that they were promoting a system of self-sufficient industrial centers. Among 42
them were the Vesnin brothers, Ilya Golosov and the economist Leonid Sabsovich. They were for the idea of a clear functional separation of the residential, work and leisure areas. The Scheme of Nicolaj Milyutin for Magnitogorsk illustrates particularly this idea. The different functions are separated in different functional strips. But the importance of the green promoted by the desurbanist group was also integrated in this scheme providing buffer zones between residential and industrial areas (Engel, 2007). Most of the schemes were not realized because of the drastic political changes taking place in the 1930’s but they influenced urban developments taking place thirty years later.
EBENEZER HOWARD’S GARDEN CITY, 1902.
43
1949, MOSCOW, ZEMLYANOY VAL, 46-48 BY YEVGENY RYBITSKY.
1950’S, STALINIST PALACE IN THE LENINA STREET
SOCIALIST REALISM
1936-1941, MOSCOW, YAUZSKY BOULEVARD, 2, BY ILYA GOLOSOV.
In 1934, Stalin declared Socialist Realism a state policy. Artists had to follow this new imposed movement and Architects and planners also had to adapt their methods, from a modernist to an academic model. The following repressions organized by Stalin, the purges, touched a great number of them, facing the impossibility of a return to an academic system. It was already the end of the constructivist movement and the ideas of the 1920’s were mostly unrealized. Neo-classical projects had to be built following classical rules of urban design. In order to develop cities in accordance to the Socialist realism movement, Stalin set up new policies. -New developments had to proceed by whole ensembles. -City block size had to be increased from 1-2 ha, to 9-15 ha. -New developments should be limited in density to 400 persons per ha. -Buildings should be at least 6 stories high and 7-10-14 story on first rate streets. -Embankments are first-rate streets, only zoned for first-rate housing and offices. These strict rules were established for the masterplan of Moscow in 1935 and had to take as example for the planning of cities such as Perm. Palaces for the workers had to be built in order to give them high standard of living. Their construction was very expensive and the state couldn’t provide enough houses in cities such as Perm that had to be quickly developed. This need was thus compensated by a large amount of temporary wooden buildings, the barracks, were provided in order to host the citizens. The better houses were given to the best workers while others were packed in barracks. A new elite appeared, living in the new palaces, located were the urban plans were realized. In Perm, two major parts of Stalinist extension are recognisable within the city centre, the extension of Komsomolsky prospect and the new settlement of Motovilika. The objectives of quality were so high that these houses remain the best ones within the city. At the same time new industrial city satellites were created around the city. Their centre is composed by Stalinist town houses smaller than the worker palaces but also providing high living standards. 44
Vitaly Pavlovich Lagutenko (1904–1967), soviet architect engineer, developed the first designs of low/cost concrete prefabricated housings under Khrushchev.
MASS CONSTRUCTION
When Khrushchev became the head of the Soviet Union in 1953 he declared a period of “destalinisation”, replacing a major part of the inherited Stalinist administration. The ideology radically shifted from the neo-classical esthetics to pure functionalism. Khrushchev’s aim, stated in his “secret speech” in 1956, was to provide as much housing as possible in the shortest time. It was only then that urban utopian thoughts reoriented themselves towards the ideas of the 1920’s (Dolgy, 1971). In 1960 at a town planning conference, it was agreed that new town planning plans should follow the idea of economic viability. Simplicity, severity of form and economy of solutions had to be the main principles of Soviet architecture. Prefabrication was seen as an important characteristic of Soviet architecture, avoiding any form of individuality in urban landscapes (Belousov, 1977). Between 1960 and 1975, twothirds of the Russian population was housed in prefabricated buildings (Bater, 1980). The apartment units were built at some distance from the factory which allocated apartments and managed these properties. Under Brezhnev, construction techniques were slightly improved and cities expanded following the same principles. But the monotony and uniformity of cities resulting from this type of planning lead Brezhnev to declare in his speech to the Baumann constituency in Moscow the 14 June 1977: “Our architects can and must put an end to the uniformity of construction and the lack of expression of architectural solutions” (Belousov, 1977). This was the beginning of a new era of buildings, taller, still prefabricated, set up following the rules of the microrayon, but trying to avoid the former rules of orthogonality in order to break the monotony of the urban landscapes. The new types of housing series were called Improved Floor Plans. Those principles formalized the concept of the microrayon guided the construction of Russian cities from the 1970’s until today. They were the result of constant research supposed to structure the social ideal of the city of workers.
45
46
2.4 Microrayon PLAN FOR A RESIDENTIAL AREA IN ZAKAMSK, 1970’s.
MICRORAYON IN THE TRADITIONAL AREA OF TIMBER HOUSING IN VISIM
The microrayon is the basic unit structuring every residential area in Russia from the 1960’s until today. The principles were applied for the first time during the Khrushchev era in order to plan large pieces of cities in a fast and efficient way. This concept, based on optimal numbers of population and layering of activities was already debated in the 1920’s in Moscow by the architects responsible for the planning of new cities. They had the responsibility to plan the new socialist city, reflecting the ideologies of that time. The research made by architects in Europe to find a solution to the problems encountered in the industrial cities had an important influence in Moscow. Ebenezer Howard and his garden city can be seen as the premises of this concept.
47
MICRORAYON IN ST. PETERSBURG
MICRORAYON IN MOSCOW
MICRORAYON IN NOVOSIBIRSK
48
RULES
A microrayon (or micro-district) is designed for a population from 10’000 to 12’000 persons, and in area from 30 to 50 ha. Besides dwelling units, facilities are provided on a daily basis. Those are stores, laundries, cleaning and repair shops, schools, kindergartens, restaurants, and recreational areas. These services have to be situated in a radius of 150 to 300m. The profitability of the projects called for the construction of about 100’000 sqm of housing floor area. The residential district is a unit of population of 30’000 to 50’000 made by the aggregation of several microrayons. At this level, a wider set of services is provided to the inhabitants within a service radius of 1’000 to 1’200 m. Those are shopping centres, medical facilities, cultural centre, higher schools, administrations, and parks. An aggregation of residential districts of 100’000 to 300’000 creates a third level called urban district. In large cities, a fourth level of 800’000 to 1’000’000 people is called urban zone. At the highest level are found facilities needed on a weekly or monthly basis as public and administrative buildings, medical centre, transport terminals, and higher educational and research institutes (Reiner & Wilson, 1979). STREETS
The street networks are planned following the same hierarchy. The streets are divided in residential streets, main streets, rayonal boulevards and boulevards of urban significance (Smoljar, 1973). Boulevards connect the different parts of the city such as the residential areas, industry, public centres and important transports hubs. They are very wide, often 40 to 50 meters, in order to support manifestations and demonstrations and to demonstrate political power (Engel, 2007). The main streets and residential streets link different groups of buildings. As it was planned that no traffic should cross the residential areas, those streets are connected to cul-de-sacs leading to the buildings. Pedestrian paths are another system superimposed on the street system, linking different buildings of a microrayon but also linking different microrayons together.
50
square meters was the surface of green area per inhabitant that planners wanted to provide.
PUBLIC SPACES
Public spaces are also designed following the same rules. New standards were set up for green spaces. It was stated that 24 sq m of urban green area should be provided for every inhabitant and by the 1970’s, this number should reach 40 to 50 sq m. This large amount of green was provided to improve the microclimate, noise insulation and act as creative and social element. The parks, major public spaces, of a size of 6 ha, were to be provided within a maximum distance of 800m of every apartment. It was to be the social centre of every microrayon (Engel, 2006). Within a microrayon, smaller public spaces had to be provided between the buildings, at a maximum distance of 150-200 m. There a small park with a playground can be found, separated from the paths to make it more private. They are intimate spaces, shared by the inhabitants of the surrounding buildings. The very small housing surface given to the inhabitants was compensated by significant number of places for socialising that were and remain functional because of this same reason. Mainly because of budgetary problems and also because of a lack 49
50
PARKOVY’S MICRORAYON IN PERM
of knowledge of the places, most of the plans were never finished. The first priority was given to housing, and often programs such as communal facilities or open spaces were simply not realized. As the land didn’t belong to anyone, outdoor spaces were colonized by unplanned structures such as garages, auto-boxes or small storage. From 1991, privatization gave rise to the possibility of compensating the lack for services by the transformation of flats or basements in commercial surfaces. A large number of Kiosks providing a wide range of services were also built on the corners of important streets or close to public transport stations. TODAY
Nowadays, even if the funding of most of the projects has become private and the property system is changed, the microrayon remains the basis for the planning. The Russian Construction Standards and Regulation (SNiP) 2.07.01-89 last time updated in 1989 contain the rules that still have to be followed in order to design a residential area. Thus, developers are now in charge of the planning of new housing units, but also of the social facilities and the street networks within residential areas. They have become the major actors of the cities development.
51
52
2.5 Housing
LEFT : PROJECT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AREA BAKHAREVKA IN PERM.
FUNNY FACADE OF IMPROVED FLOOR PLANS IN PERM
In Perm, like in the whole of Russia, the retreat of the State from housing provision has resulted in a decrease in the availability of public housing services. At the same time privatisation has resulted in many new homeowners who cannot afford the maintenance of their apartments often already in bad conditions. During the decade following the perestroika, almost no new buildings were built. The city was not investing anymore and no investors were interested in developing in cities such as Perm. All the investments remained concentrated in Moscow and St. Petersburg. But after the crisis of 1998, the economy started to grow and cities like Perm became interesting for Russians as well as for foreign investors. This resulted in an important number of new developments sprawled over the city, in places where land could be acquired. These ambitious projects are unfortunately often too luxurious and not located in attractive areas. They do not answer the market demand and often remain empty even though housing demand is increasing.
53
POPULATION WITHIN THE DIFFERENT CITY PARTS AND CITY SATELLITES, SCALE 1 : 350’000
Zaozere
50’000 INHABITANTS
Golovanovo Levsino Frunze Gaiva
Nalimisha
Kamsky
Vishka Lijadi
Akulova Motovilika
Kurija
Centre Parkovy Danilikha
Zakamsk
Gorky Sadovi
Jubilejni Vladimirsky Khrokalheva
Balatovo
LIVING SPACE AREA
In Perm there is an average living space area of about 20 sqm per persons. This is about 2/3 of the European average. The resulting living conditions are problematic and ask for a quick increase of living space. The apartments provided until now unfortunately do not fill this gap. They are the result of ambitious projects offering expensive flats, unaffordable for the majority of the population, which then remains empty. AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL SPACE PER PERSONS IN EUROPE. SOURCE: OMA, 2006.
p
p
p
60 50 40 average: 28 sqm/pers.
30
Perm: 19.6 sqm/pers.
20 10
[m2]
14’000’000 square meters of gross floor area planned around Perm.
Denmark Germany Finland France Sweden United Kingdom Estonia Italy Slovakia Belgium Netherland Austria Luxemburg Greece Spain Lithuania Malta Ireland Czechia Slovenia Romania Hungary Hungary Russia Perm Portugal Latvia Poland
0
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
In the city outskirts, large pieces of land are now being planned. And at the same time, new infrastructure such as ring roads and bridges are being built by the city to support these projects. Their location, far away from the city centre is mainly the result of the impossibility of access to land within the city centre and the economic advantage of building a lot in one location. These projects have the potential to noticeably increase the living 54
NEW DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE PERM TERRITORY, SCALE 1 : 350’000 NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
area of the city. Nevertheless, they seem hardly feasible if we consider the pressure of such projects, with infrastructure already saturated. Moreover, the existing city fabric has a very low average density (FAR ~1) and about one fourth of it is composed of buildings which will soon need to be replaced. The consequence could be a massive migration of citizen in the city outskirts, leaving an empty ring between the sustainable city centre and the new residential areas. Nevertheless, this process that seemed inexorable was suddenly interrupted. Since September 2008, the projects are on-hold, a consequence of the international economic crisis. RESIDENTIAL AREA IVA I.
55
56
3. Generic Perm As with the main cities in Russia, Perm is readable in seven typologies, either applied in a generic or in a composite form. Some of the generic ones are characterized by the current regeneration process of studies of refurbishment, especially in Moscow and in St. Petersburg. Due to the generic way they have been used in all the Russian cities, the strategies of renewal designed for the capitals are almost completely applicable to Perm, too.
57
58
3.1 From traditional to city centre
LEFT: STREET NETWORK,AROUND 1918
The typology of the centre of Perm results from the densification and urbanization of the traditional one. Originally, their buildings were very different, respectively composed by timber housing and brick buildings. However these typologies are defined by a common rectangular grid system, providing a durable instance of control. This enables the renewal of the building stock, keeping the urban connection and retaining the clear definition of public spaces.
PERM CENTRE AROUND 1920
59
PERM HISTORICAL MAP, 1898
PERM’S RETICULAR GRID PERM HISTORICAL MAP, 1898, DETAIL OF THE MARKET
The original streets correspond today to the streets Ordzhonikidze, Sovetskaya, Kommunistischeskaya, Lenina, Kirova, Bolshevistskaya, Lunacharskogo and Pushkina.
PERM HISTORICAL MAP, 1898, DETAIL OF THE OPERA SQUARE
Perm is not a Russian city composed by an enclosed Kremlin and its surrounding agglomeration. Originally it is a European city. Its foundation is related to the policy of Russian Europeanization and particularly the colonization of the Ural. Close to the former village of Yegoshika, today called Razguliay, is applied in the early XVIII century a neo-classical grid of reticular streets on a plateau about 30 meters above the Kama River. In continuity with the original grid, in1781 the city extended above the Gorki Park. The main streets lead straight up to the Komsomolsky cross-street, called Wide Lane, drawn from there towards the Kama stream. (Mozel, 1864) The city was at that time articulated around three squares representative of the religious and political, the commercial and the cultural orders. These correspond today to the area around the Holy Trinity Cathedral, the Ural volunteer’s public garden and finally to the Opera square. The first commercial street was situated in the West part of the city, along the current Kommunistischeskaya Street, which burnt down in 1842: The fire devastated the best and the main part of Perm. All the oldest houses in Petropavlovskaya Square and Street were destroyed – those were memorials from the governor’s general times: a spacious “palace” or the former house of the governor-general, the governor’s and the vice-governor’s houses, the Duma, the guardhouse, etc (Dimirtiyev, 1889). It is not unusual at this period that cities were completely burnt in Russia: at this time the main building material was still timber. After the fire of 1842, the main activities move to the east part of Perm. The spaces of social life changed depending on the season. The summer life is on the bank of the Kama River and in the winter the pulse of the city moves into the Sibirskaya Street, which is compared to a miniature of the Nevsky Avenue. There and nearby the town’s institutions and the best stores of the city are situated (Verkholantsev, 1913).
PERM HISTORICAL MAP, 1898, DETAIL OF THE HOLY TRINITY CATHEDRAL
60
61
PLOTS IN THE INNER CITY
PERM HISTORICAL MAP, 1898, DETAIL OF THE PLOT DIVISION
Due to the traditional model of ownership, old Perm is defined by blocks, which inside are private and the outside public. However, the large size of the plots and the sparse distribution of the surrounding buildings, in 1917 allow a radical redefinition of these spaces. Soon after the Red Revolution, the private courtyards became public. Thresholds were dissolved coming to signify free access and in some case an extension of the public street (Staub 2005). The various delimitations between public and private space remained important after the end of the soviet era. This is illustrated by new towers or significant buildings which are built in the courtyards, which were originally in private realm. The abolition of private space under the soviets was one of the main factors in opening up the structure of urban plots which eventually lead to their complete dissolution.
AERIAL VIEW OF PERM, CITY CENTRE, 2008
LENINA STREET.
62
AXONOMETRIC VIEW OF A TYPICAL BLOCK IN THE CENTRE
URBAN SITUATION
PLOT DIVISION
PUBLIC ENTRANCES TO THE BLOCK
THRESHOLDS
UNPLANNED PATHS
PLANNED PUBLIC SPACES
PRIVATE SPACE
BABUSHKA’S SETTLEMENTS
MAIN BUILDINGS
PRIVATE ACCESS TO THE BUILDING
UNPLANNED ELEMENTS
HOUSING
COMMON FACILITIES
COMMERCIAL
ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS
URBAN DATCHA
63
INSIDE SITUATION OF A CENTRAL BLOCK
STREET IN THE CENTRE
TIMBER HOUSING AND NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE CENTRE
64
CURRENT BRICK BUILDING
CURRENT STATE OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING FABRIC
The popular belief that it is healthiest to live in timber housing explains why wood was the principal construction material in Russia for a sustained period. However, as with European cities of the XIX century, Perm centre is composed of civic, religious and cultural stone or brick monuments, which were important symbols of the city such as the Opera house, the cathedral or the Meshkov’s palace. A significant number of these stone and brick buildings have survived the last century and in part been renovated. Some religious buildings have reassumed their original functions and splendor. On the contrary, timber housing have mostly been removed in the centre and replaced by taller buildings, considerably changing the city shape.
65
MOTOVILIKA WORKER SETTLEMENT
In the XIX century in Perm the commercial, political and cultural life and its plants were concentrated along the Kama. The main industry was the former copper foundry of Motovilika, which is about 3.5 km above Perm (State Archives of the city of Perm Region, 1998). Until 1921 there were no bridges crossing the Yegoshikha valley and the two settlements were relatively isolated. It was not only a physical separation, the two areas were socially and typologically different. Motovilikha was the site of the first socialist insurrection, being the ideal place for the political propaganda of the early 1900’s. Across the plant timber housing is laid out respectively on four plateaus. As with Perm, the streets are arranged in a rectangular grid adapted to the topography. TRADITIONAL PLOT
The plot typology in Motovilika corresponds to the tradition of the Perm region. This mainly composed of detached timber housing around a subdivided courtyard. The size of the plots is conceived so as to be big enough for gardens, allowing the production of vegetables compensating the lack of agricultural resources around the city. Every household has a private garden separated from the others by wooden walls, allowing for more private activities such as housing facilities. The elimination of the private property failed to have the same effect as in the centre of Perm, and the spatial qualities remain the same as in the time of their construction.
AERIAL VIEW OF A TYPICAL TRADITIONAL BLOCK
66
AXONOMETRIC VIEW OF A TYPICAL TRADITIONAL BLOCK
URBAN SITUATION
PLOT DIVISION
PUBLIC ENTRANCES TO THE BLOCK
THRESHOLDS
UNPLANNED PATHS
PLANNED PUBLIC SPACES
PRIVATE SPACE
BABUSHKA’S SETTLEMENTS
MAIN BUILDINGS
PRIVATE ACCESS TO THE BUILDING
UNPLANNED ELEMENTS
HOUSING
COMMON FACILITIES
COMMERCIAL
ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS
URBAN DATCHA
67
TRADITIONAL TIMBER HOUSE IN VISIM
ADAPTATION OF A TRADITIONAL TIMBER HOUSE IN VISIM
OVERVIEW OF THE “STREET WITHOUT NAME” IN THE TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT AROUND THE MOTOVILIKA PLANT
68
CURRENT TIMBER HOUSING AND COTTAGES
TIMBER HOUSING
Timber, as the traditional construction material, gave rise to only one typology, which continued to be built before, during and after the Soviet Times. The small size of the houses makes their integration in various topographical conditions easy. Now as before, timber houses are almost unique as an alternative to collective ones. Today most of the timber settlements suffer of a lack of infrastructure, public transports, water and hygiene. Some of them are in very bad condition or abandoned. But as timber housing is gradually removed from the city centre, they represent the sole individual alternative of living far from noise and pollution. Some of them have been replaced by luxury enclosed cottages, sometime composing the living units for gated communities. Moreover, some of these decorated timber houses are representative of traditional Russian culture and deserve to be kept and refurbished.
69
70
3.2 Constructivism
LEFT: STREET NETWORK DEVELOPMENT DURING CONSTRUCTIVIST TIMES
The remaining constructivist buildings in the city centre are: the Dom Chekistov in the Sibirskaja 30 (1932), the Hotel Central in the Sibirskaja 9 (Architect. F. E. Morogov, 1930-1933), Gorsovet House in the Bolshevistskaja 51, the Rechnoy Vokzal (1932) in the Ordgenikidze 13 and the Technikum in the Ostrovskogo 60, the Post office in the Lenina 26.
The 1920’s, was a time of political instability which had an unusual urban development. Thus this typology is not the most common, in Perm as in Russia, but it represents an essential step in urban thinking, between traditional and soviet thought. The failure of soviet urbanism in its last 50 years and the relatively new trend of post-modernism, give to this typology a tremendous importance. In Perm, this time of intellectual and international euphoria produced a number of buildings. According to modern ideology, these are composed of simple forms without applied decorations and constructed in revolutionary materials. They are taller than the traditional typologies and fit on bigger lots with stronger urban character. The buildings perch within the neo-classical urban structure of the city centre with perfect urban continuity. Nowadays these constructivist buildings need to be restored but as they continue to function, their survival in the short term is assured.
GORSOVET HOUSE, BOLSHEVISTSKAJA 51
71
TECHNIKUM IN THE OSTROVSKOGO 60
DOM CHEKISTOV IN THE SIBIRSKAJA 30 (1932)
GORSOVET HOUSE, BOLSHEVISTSKAJA 51
72
MOLOTOV
Im Gegensatz zur bürgerlichen Ideologie, die die Wohnung zum Lebenszentrum erklärt, werden weiterhin für den Sowjetbürger die “Lebenszentren” ausserhalb der Wohnung – “an den materiellen oder geistig-kulturellen Produktionsstellen”, im Betrieb, im Klub, in der Schule usw. – dominieren. (Hannes Meyer, Tätigkeiten an der Architekturakademie)
During the 1920’s, Motovilika was developed further to reflect new revolutionary urban ideals. On the third of November 1927 the worker camp of Motovilika and Perm were merged to form one city. In 1931 Motovilika received the name of Molotov. In 1940, Perm became known as Molotov, loosing its name until 1957. A project of Hannes Meyer for Sozgorod na Gorkach was an attempt to develop this area again in 1932, to connect Molotov to Perm. The plans are conceived with several housing quarters surrounded by culture, schooling and green belts, predominantly placed around the borders of the plateaus. The living sector is stretched from the North to the South, along a single main traffic axis, which connects a cultural, an administrative and a commercial centre. This constructivist settlement, also called District camp (Semyrannikov, 2006) conformed to the new social ideals, where the main living spaces are not within the private apartments anymore, as in the capitalist bourgeois society, but in the “material, spiritual and cultural places of production”(Hannes Meyer, 1936). Hence a group of buildings is placed between the housing buildings and the plant, creating the social centre or “social condenser” laid out in a programmatic strip of common services. The centre of Molotov is composed by four concrete buildings: the industrial kitchen FabrikaKuhnja in Uralskaja 85 (I. Golosov), the House of Technika in Uralskaja 78 (H. Meyer, A. Urban), the school of Lebedeva 78 and the administrative building of Ziolkovskogo 15. Other brick buildings with constructivist forms are the Diom Svjazi in Uralskaja 36 and the clinics in Lebedeva 11 and Gracheva 12.
HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE HOUSE OF TECHNIKA IN URALSKAJA 78
73
The social condensers placed outside the living blocks, forms a hub with a similar relationship to the housing as before. No public program is located inside the blocks. The uniqueness of these buildings lies in the fact that public program is partially able to replace some private ones. Commercial and religious buildings are no longer considered. Constructivist buildings have to integrate these new programs, their language expressing the new society. A great example is the FabrikaKuhnja, built to provide 30.000 dishes a day for workers and their families and to release the woman from the “kitchen slavery�. REVOLUTIONNARY THRESHOLDS
Nearby the facility buildings are located 20 housing slabs, with the same footprint (length about 50 meters, width about 11m) assembled around green opene courtyards. The entrances are located inside the block, creating a new type of space open to public, but mainly used by the inhabitants. This feature breaks with the traditional placement of private entrances on the street, redefining the nature of courtyards in semi-public spaces. The thresholds between the public realm and private sphere are not defined elements such as fences, doors or porches, but became flexible spaces, able to be either privatized or opened to the public. This new characteristic remained and developed during the following typologies of the Soviet era.
DISTRICT CAMP, WORKER SETTLEMENT, SEMI-PUBLIC COURTYARD
74
AXONOMETRIC VIEW OF A CONSTRUCTIVIST BLOCK AND SOCIAL CONDENSERS
URBAN SITUATION
PLOT DIVISION
PUBLIC ENTRANCES TO THE BLOCK
THRESHOLDS
UNPLANNED PATHS
PLANNED PUBLIC SPACES
PRIVATE SPACE
BABUSHKA’S SETTLEMENTS
MAIN BUILDINGS
PRIVATE ACCESS TO THE BUILDING
UNPLANNED ELEMENTS
HOUSING
COMMON FACILITIES
COMMERCIAL
ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS
URBAN DATCHA
75
HOUSE OF TECHNIKA IN URALSKAJA 78
THE INDUSTRIAL KITCHEN FABRIKAKUHNJA IN URALSKAJA 85.
WORKER SETTLEMENT
76
CURRENT TIMBER HOUSING AND COTTAGES
HOUSING
The lack of spontaneous appropriation of the courtyard highlights a difference from other typologies. This arrangement avoids private external spaces, but still provides a diverse and generous housing surface with the necessary facilities. Seven buildings are constructed in reinforced concrete and two of them are covered with Stalinists decorations. Their layout seems to be similar. Their bi-oriented apartments are spacious with entrance hall, kitchen, toilets and big rooms, the smallest being about 15 squares meters. The ceiling height is about three meters. These buildings are built in in-situ concrete composed of big pebbles or bricks pieces and reinforced by steel cables. The repetition of the same elements on the façade shows the possibilities of using of standard cladding. The variety of openings is ensured by a composition made with the same model of window. The aim of this constructivist model is to increase the quality of the housing and the floor plans while decreasing the costs. The rationalization in construction techniques derives from improving spatial quality of the dwellings, providing an equal distribution of space and light. Standardization, used massively from the 1960’s, will neglect these qualities in order to satisfy economic demands of time and money.
77
78
3.3 Socialist Realism
LEFT : STREET NETWORK DEVELOPMENT DURING TIMES OF SOCIALIST REALISM
After two decades of political instability in the post revolutionary years, a socialist society had to be established. The period going from 1938 to 1957 is a time of calm. In order to express the communist ideals, Perm was designed along fixed lines reflecting the new order of Socialist Realism.
PERM MASTERPLAN, (1940), VIEW OF THE CITY GALLERY)
79
PERM MASTERPLAN, (1940), VIEW FROM A VALLEY
PERM MASTERPLAN, (1940), VIEW OF THE NEW MOTOVILIKA
PERM MASTERPLAN, (1940), VIEW OF PERM CITY BLOCKS
80
PERM MASTERPLAN, (1940)
PERM MASTERPLAN, (1940), PLAN OF THE NEW MOTOVILIKA
URBAN IDEOLOGY
PERM MASTERPLAN, (1940), PLAN OF THE MARKET
A new plan for Perm was drawn up in 1940, showing a revival of interests in the old city centre. This precise master plan is based on neo-classical rules in continuity with the urban structure of Perm’s city centre. Two more centres were planned, one within the old city centre and a second one in Motovilika. The two cities then became one, called Molotov. The industrial settlements were connected together with impressive bridges, forming a new network serving the secondary centres. The urban strategy combines a geometrical structure of massive open blocks sliced through geometrical valleys. The size of the city block is kept or doubled, the rivers are canalised and the valleys arranged in gorgeous parks. A scaled neo-classical grid structure was designed with exploded blocks, lanes and avenues connecting monumental squares and parks. The streets were wide and straight, full of fountains, statues and geometrical greenery. In the utopians views of 1940 the small villages of timber housing no longer appear nor the industries. Instead of these new palaces are foreseen, where an equal society meets and lives. Order reigns. The only remaining sign of old Perm is the Opera house, the Perm cathedral) and the Komsomolsky Prospect. Some quarters are handled more precisely as with the connection between Molotov and Perm, and the blocks around the Esplanade and Razguliay.
PERM MASTERPLAN, (1940), PLAN OF THE NEW RAZGULIAY
81
PERMER REALITY
The plans of 1940 seem to ignore an essential element of Perm: the implantation of industries. Every satellite around Perm and the quarters of the city centre are attached to an industry (Shamarin 2008). It is necessary to distinguish two types of urban developments started during the Socialist Realism and emphasized during the Soviet era: the developments in continuity with the city and the new satellites. The first ones are made in continuity with the original structure, as for example Komsomolsky Prospect. This large green axis is leading to the Engine Factory founded in 1931. The plots neighboring plots are of much bigger size. Along Lenina Street, around the Esplanade, Massive Stalinits palaces increase about six times the size of the former plots, creating a new hierarchy of streets, either outside or inside of these megablocks based on the principles of the Muscovite Kwartal.
KOMSOMOLSKI PROSPEKT, THE WORKER PALACES IN THE FRONTAL BLOCKS, BEHIND TOWN HOUSES
82
TOWN HOUSES OF THE WORKER SETTLEMET ON MIRA STREET IN BALATOVO.
The second type of developments has to be related to the foundation of new industrial satellites started in the 1940’s. Their urban structure is conceived independently, connected with the other centres by only one or few roads. The closer city satellites have been now joined by the city core extension but they remain anyway often disconnected from the other city parts. Their integration is the consequence of the city growth and not of a project of connection. Therefore, settlements such as Khrokalehva, Sheleznodoroshnij or Vladimirsky have become kind of ghettos, with the paradox of being isolated from a city in which they are. The differentiation between connected urban extension and foundation of new satellites is related to two different building typologies, respectively the worker palaces and the town houses, either small palaces or komunalkas. BRICK BARRACKS OF KHROKALEHVA
83
VIEW FROM A STALINIST COURTYARD
BLOCKS OF WORKER PALACES
Called the workers palaces of Stalin, this typology is built almost exactly following the axonometric views of 1940, manifesting the idea of integration within the existing city. The blocks of worker palaces are composed by residential buildings around a semi-public space and public services within the block, being the first attempt to provide inside of a block all the public services needed for its inhabitants. Thresholds such as porches are often well defined, enclosing the internal space. The size of the blocks is on the one hand too small to contain enough programs in order to become self sufficient in term of programs and facilities. On the other hand the space is too big to create an intimate atmosphere. From one window is not possible to see the other side of the block, which actually increase the feeling of loneliness and anonymity and restrain social exchanges between the neighbors. Moreover the bigger size constrains people from the surrounding to cross it, making it even more public. The clearly defined space of the courtyard comparable to a park, as well as the big size of the flats, avoid spontaneous appropriations of the ground.
VIEW OF A STALINIST COURTYARD
84
AXONOMETRIC VIEW OF A TYPICAL STALINIST BLOCK
URBAN SITUATION
PLOT DIVISION
PUBLIC ENTRANCES TO THE BLOCK
THRESHOLDS
UNPLANNED PATHS
PLANNED PUBLIC SPACES
PRIVATE SPACE
BABUSHKA’S SETTLEMENTS
MAIN BUILDINGS
PRIVATE ACCESS TO THE BUILDING
UNPLANNED ELEMENTS
HOUSING
COMMON FACILITIES
COMMERCIAL
ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS
URBAN DATCHA
85
STALINIST PALACES IN COMSOMOLSKY PROSPEKT
STALINIST PALACES IN COMSOMOLSKY PROSPEKT
STALINIST PALACES IN COMSOMOLSKY PROSPEKT, COURTYARD
86
CURRENT STALINIST PALACES
WORKER PALACES The buildings are conventionally built brick-on-brick; the apartments are spacious and the ceilings are high. All the facilities are included like the central heating system, the central garbage shafts or the central ventilation. A centrally planned economy meant a centrally planned society (Staub, 2005). The historicist decorations on the faรงade are also fairly appreciated. Contrariwise to the barracks, people boast to live in Stalinist buildings. In the past the heads of the society or the intelligentsia lived there and the flats apparently still belong to their families. Most of the times Stalinist housings are situated in central areas and their ground floors have often been transformed after the perestroika in order to receive commercial or office programs.
87
SATELLITES BLOCKS The new satellites within and around Perm shared a common urban layout. Housing buildings are distributed around a semi-public courtyard and their dimensions are reduced in comparison to the Stalinist palaces, decreasing the density and the urban character. School and common services are located outside of the blocks, increasing the possibility of privatisation of the inner spaces. Generally the entrances are located in the courtyard, but there are several exceptions. It is usual to find housing buildings in the middle of the blocks, provoking a complex system of spontaneous paths. Around houses such as Komunalkas, where the living space is reduced to the minimum, the necessity of private storages leads to an extensive occupation of the surrounding spaces with small structures made of wood or metal, used as storages. The housing buildings are there of two different types, the town houses, being the a reduced declination of the palace, and the barrack, a temporary wooden building being the result of the impossibility to built enough houses for the large amount of workers.
TOWN HOUSES
88
AXONOMETRIC VIEW OF A TYPICAL BLOCK OF STALINIST TOWN HOUSES
URBAN SITUATION
PLOT DIVISION
PUBLIC ENTRANCES TO THE BLOCK
THRESHOLDS
UNPLANNED PATHS
PLANNED PUBLIC SPACES
PRIVATE SPACE
BABUSHKA’S SETTLEMENTS
MAIN BUILDINGS
PRIVATE ACCESS TO THE BUILDING
UNPLANNED ELEMENTS
HOUSING
COMMON FACILITIES
COMMERCIAL
ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS
URBAN DATCHA
89
CURRENT BRICK AND TIMBER BARRACKS
TOWN HOUSES Town houses resemble to Stalinist palaces. The floor plans are not organised in komunalkas, but as individual dwellings. The rooms are big, the ceilings high, all facilities are included and the facades are well decorated. This former housing is successful, spacious and comfortable. They were built by Germans, sometimes by prisoners of the WWII (Semyrannikov, 2006). All town houses have almost two or three levels, sometimes four. KOMUNALKAS Komunalkas are living units where the private sphere is reduced to one single room for each family, while facilities are shared communal. Traditionally, four families share a common kitchen, telephone, and when existing, common toilets. The worst ones are timber houses, in which conditions are very bad. This construction is extremely light; there is no running water or facilities. The courtyards are impossible to maintain and they are always covered in mud. In the Permer and Russian 90
COURTYARD OF BARRACKS IN ZAKAMSK
culture it is far from an honor to live in barracks like these. Since Stalin’s time the cult of the work enabled skilled workers to get a good house in a short time; the bad ones went to barracks. Peoples leaving here are often reputed to the bad families of lazy drunks. Komunalkas in timber or in brick are less sustainable, with a particularly short life span. Stalinist’s worker palaces represent one of the most durable urban typologies. Their integration in the urban network, the good quality of the buildings and their social environments are essential elements in insuring their future. More problematic is the future of the komunalkas. Their destiny is a tabula rasa leaving the ground free for speculative projects adding problems in terms of social integrations and urban connection. It is essential to understand which are their intrinsic qualities and their relationship with the surrounding environment. The strategy of renewal could be similar to the khrushovkas being one of the most problematic.
BARRACKS OF JELEZNODOROSHNIJ
91
TOWN HOUSES IN LEVSINO
TOWN HOUSE IN BALATOVO
TOWN HOUSE IN GAIVA
92
BARRACK IN JELEZNODOROSHNIJ
BARRACK IN JELEZNODOROSHNIJ “S.O.S. DESTROY BARRACKS!”
BARRACK IN JELEZNODOROSHNIJ
93
94
3.4 Khrushchovkas
LEFT : STREET NETWORK DEVELOPMENT DURING THE 1960’S AND 1970’S
KHRUSHCHOVKA IN BALATOVO
The end of the Socialist Realism dates from 1955, with Khrushchev’s decree on the liquidation of excess. Expensive Stalinist buildings and individual projects were slow and not scalable to the needs of overcrowded cities. In January 1950 at an architect convention supervised by Khrushchev, new low-cost and high speed technologies were declared as the new objective for Soviet architects. The aim was to offer an apartment for every family, to cut superfluous costs and to avoid the former social differentiations. This change of policy is also related to the standardization of urban models; introducing the concept of the microrayon.
95
MAXI BLOCK - MIKRORAYON A break with the geometrically well defined Stalinist block of the 1940’s recalls the 1920’s idea of Howard’s Garden City (Engel, 2006), which included in the city important natural elements such as parks and green alleys. The building itself defines now the new urban spaces by simple rules of distances. Khrushchovkas settlements are projected around the city of Perm and form large surfaces of housings, often served by very few connections to the centre. This urban typology has no hierarchy; the block has no inside and outside anymore. It is now a tapestry made of similar standardized buildings in the green able to fill any places with a big flexibility. Blocks are big but perfectly permeable as the buildings are set up at reasonable distances from each other. The blocks are crossed by alleys and by many pedestrian paths, often maintained by inhabitants in order to avoid the omnipresent mud in spring and autumn. Thus type of planning were outdoor spaces is often more a consequence than a main left an important place to the unplanned, allowing different appropriations. KHRUSHCHOVKAS
THREE STEPS OF KHRUSHCHOVKA : 1. WITH BRICKS 2. WITH PANELS 2. WITH PANELS AND LIFT
In 1961 a muscovite institute released the K-7, a prefab 5-storey housing building, the first khrushchovka. This building typology is an early attempt to industrialise and prefabricate buildings. The elements (or panels) were produced in concrete plants and trucked to the site . Considering elevators as too expensive and a waste of time, the Soviet health and safety standard defined five storey as the maximum height for the Khrushchovkas. Compared to the barracks or the komunalkas, the living qualities offered by khrushchovkas are much improved. Every family enjoyed a private toilet and kitchen. Rooms in the K-7 model were “fully isolated”, in the sense that they all connected to a tiny entrance hall and not to each other. With later designs, residents had to pass through the living room to reach the bedroom, apparently in order to avoid its use as sleeping room. Completed bathrooms cubicles, assembled at the plant, were brought to the site; construction crews would only lower them in place and connect the piping.
KHRUSHCHOVKAS IN SADOVY
96
AXONOMETRIC VIEW OF A TYPICAL KHRUSHCHOVKAS BLOCK
URBAN SITUATION
PLOT DIVISION
PUBLIC ENTRANCES TO THE BLOCK
THRESHOLDS
UNPLANNED PATHS
PLANNED PUBLIC SPACES
PRIVATE SPACE
BABUSHKA’S SETTLEMENTS
MAIN BUILDINGS
PRIVATE ACCESS TO THE BUILDING
UNPLANNED ELEMENTS
HOUSING
COMMON FACILITIES
COMMERCIAL
ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS
URBAN DATCHA
97
CURRENT TIMBER HOUSING AND COTTAGES
Typical apartments of the K-7 serues have a floor area of 30 m2 (1-room), 44 m2 (2-rooms) and 60 m2 (3-rooms). Kitchen are small, usually 6 m2. The ceilings heights were reduced to 2.5 or 2.7 meter from the earlier standard of 3.2 meters (Khrushchev& Talbott, 1974). The new basic standards are: 6 m2 for a single bedroom, 8 m2 for a double bedroom and 14 m2 for the living area (Bystrykh, 2008). These apartments were planned for small families, but reality it is not unusual for three generation (6-7 people) to live together in a two-room flats. Built as temporary (about 25 years), khrushchovkas don’t reach contemporary standards any more. Their bad insulation, the size of the rooms and the spatial layout make life in their apartments inconvenient. People are not proud to live in the khrushchovkas, and at the moment there are few places where renovations has been found to be sustainable. About 30% of the population of Perm lives in this type of housing with 40% of the settled urban area covered by this typology. The bad insulation, the smallness of the living units and the monotony of the rows and rows of this housing doesn’t match the current community’s expectations. Due to their rapid deterioration and poor spatial layout, khrushchovkas soon became known as “khrushcheby”. This is a play on the Russian word for slum ‘trushcheby’ (Bystrykh, 2008). But despite many shortcomings, this typology has 98
particular architectural and urban quality, which has not been matched by the multiple generations of mass high-rise towers and blocks that have since followed (Ruble, 1993). According to the policy of the garden city, more than 60% of khrushchovkas areas are composed by green spaces in order to compensate the lack of private space in the flats. These are usually fitted out with a large amount of trees and playgrounds. However a discussion upon this with the students of the University of Perm in November 2008 confirmed the vague definition of these spaces. We asked if they were public or private, they answered with some discordance, provoking some interesting debates. It results that these green areas are neither private nor public, and even less are they considered as gardens. Almost all students agreed on a definition of public space as an enclosed or well defined space such as a park, an alley or a urban forest.
PLAN OF THE KHRUSHCHOVKA SERIE 1-464
99
KRUSHCHOVKAS IN AKULOVA.
KRUSHCHOVKAS IN ZAKAMSK.
KRUSHCHOVKA IN BALATOVO, WITH ADAPTATION OF THE GROUNDFLOOR IN COMMERCIAL SURFACES.
100
1807 KHRUSHCHOVKAS IN PERM
102
KHRUSHCHOVKA’S SEMI-PUBLIC SPACES The unclear definition of the surrounding spaces in the khrushchovka areas allows for a flexibility in their appropriation. If some of the playgrounds are still used by children, other are completely abandoned. Others semi-public spaces are used as open sky car parks, storage or autoboxes, changing the green into brown zones covered with mud. Probably the best “colonists” of these areas are the Babushkas (in Russian: granny), who carefully look at the functioning of the neighbourhood (SPU, 2008). They sit on color banks in front of their house and take care of their appropriated enclosures by adding colorful tires, planting flowers or building bird houses.
103
STREET NETWORK DEVELOPMENT AFTER THE 1970’S
104
3.5 Improved floor plans
During the 1970’s, a new buildings typology based on the Khruschovkas evolved, using higher levels of standardization and a shift in scale changing from the idea of the house in the green to a mega-structure in open fields. At this time there was a strong desire to create lively and differentiated buildings structures in contrast to the undifferentiated buildings structures and their accompanying empty spaces that had been built in the 1960’s (Rietdorf & Liebmann, 1994). The homogeneity of the Soviet cit, reaches its summit during the 1970’. Changes try to be done after Brezhnev’s speech of 1977. New construction techniques allow a new type of composition made of 9 or 10 storey high snaking buildings, emphasized with 14 to 16 level towers. This type of compositions still remains the major type of housing being built in Russia, with now slabs reaching 16 stories and towers reaching up to 25 levels. The duality of the urban developments of Perm being either integrated in the existing urban structure or made by satellites is continued with the improved floor plans. Standardized series of buildings are either spread within the city such as the T tower, an ubiquitous landmark in the Russian cities, or they are organized in big ensembles, sometimes housing up to 40’000 people.
105
MIKRORAYON – MEGASTRUCTURES
The development of the Soviet architecture after the 1960’s is characterized by the evolution of the idea of microrayon. Thanks to the large use of elevators the density of the buildings can be more than doubled. The spaces between the buildings increases, principally to get enough natural light in the flats. The wide spaces between the buildings are supposed to add quality to the flats, but the difficulties to design it make it more often assimilated as a leftover space. Snaking panel buildings counterpointed by towers are enclosing public programs such as schools and supermarkets. The complicated forms of these new compositions do not find any clear relation with the street, which become completely independent from the built fabric. There is no relationship anymore between street, plot and buildings. Due to their tallness, the buildings are set back from the street and do not integrate any programs other than housing in the ground floors. This lack is compensated by one storey high buildings receiving retails placed in front of them. A representative example is the urban development of Sadovy. Mostly built after 1991, this settlement is one of the best places to live in Perm (SPU, 2008). Large open courtyards have been built in less accessible areas. Retails such as kiosks or supermarkets are built along the main axis, on the large footpath transforming them into a linear market. The tallnesss of the buildings makes difficult any physical and psychological relationship between the private sphere of the dwellings and the outdoor public space. Housing slabs are anonymous and outdoor spaces, even if bigger are neither colonized by small constructions nor controlled by babushkas anymore. In the 1980’s the variety of forms became more differentiated, but the potential of the surrounding spaces was only ever fulfilled on paper (Engel, 2006). The enormous size of the opened courtyards and the wide shadows of the buildings considerably decrease the quality of these spaces. Their appropriations became impossible except as car park. The lack of greenery increased the feeling of sterile emptiness and the rubbish appeared more visible. MIKRORAYON MOTOVILIKA.
106
AXONOMETRIC VIEW OF A TYPICAL BLOCK IN THE CENTRE
URBAN SITUATION
PLOT DIVISION
PUBLIC ENTRANCES TO THE BLOCK
THRESHOLDS
UNPLANNED PATHS
PLANNED PUBLIC SPACES
PRIVATE SPACE
BABUSHKA’S SETTLEMENTS
MAIN BUILDINGS
PRIVATE ACCESS TO THE BUILDING
UNPLANNED ELEMENTS
HOUSING
COMMON FACILITIES
COMMERCIAL
ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS
URBAN DATCHA
107
CURRENT TIMBER HOUSING AND COTTAGES
Nowadays the projects foreseen in Perm, and in Russia in general, remained based on the same principles, increasing the amount of land used and of the size of the buildings, reaching up to 25 levels. The axonometric views advertising the flats propose magnificent bright buildings in the green, but in fact, the reality of these utopian views remains, once realized, very similar to the microrayons built since the 1970’s.
108
IMPROVED FLOOR PLANS
While the external spaces have decreased on quality after the khrushchovkas, there is a sensible amelioration of the apartment’s layout. If the buildings are still mostly conceived as standardized models, sprawled in all Russian by giant building companies, their apartments propose a increased size and propose more rooms. The quality of construction increase in terms of thermal and acoustical insulation but the materials used are still cheap and the level of construction does not reach European standards. After the 1990’s, the use of panels decreased and bricks buildings became the new trend in Russian architecture. According to the statistics agency of Perm Krai, in 2007, almost 63% of the inhabitants lived in improved floor plans and 15% of them in buildings built after 1995. Due to their better quality, improved floor plans will not be replaced in a close future. The priorities will thus be put on the demolition or refurbishment of other more critical typologies. However, the bad quality of the external public spaces and the speculative character of these buildings should be treated by small interventions.
PLAN OF THE BUILDING SERIE 600, THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PANEL HOUSING CURRENTLY ON THE MARKET. IT IS A PRODUCT OF THE PIK GROUP.
IMAGE OF THE CCURRENT PROJECT BAKHAREVKA IN THE SOUTH OF PERM.
109
PANEL HOUSINGS IN MOTOVILIKA.
PANEL HOUSINGS IN MOTOVILIKA.
PANEL HOUSINGS IN MOTOVILIKA.
110
86 “T TOWERS” IN PERM
Nearly every Soviet city nowadays has its own Cheremushki neighborhood. In bygone days when someone found himself in a strange city, has felt lost and lonely. Everything around was strange : houses, streets and life itself. But it's all different now. A person comes to a strange city, but feels at home there. To think what lenghts of absurdity our ancestors went to, when they designed different architectural projects! Nowadays in every city you will find a standard movie theatre "Rocket", where you can see a standard film. Names of the streets are not too inventive either. What city doesn't have a 1st Sadovaya or 2nd Zagorodnaya, a 3rd Factory St, a Park St., an Industrial St., or a 3rd Contructors St.? Sounds romantic, doesn't it? Staircases that all look the same are all painted with a standard pleasant color. Standard apartments furnished with standard furniture, standard locks cut into blind featureless doors…
from the movie Irony of fate Emil Braginsky and Eldar Ryazanov, Moscow, 1975
112
DACHAS
It is fundamental to relate the urban living space to the countryside. Every Russian family traditionally spends their summer time in the socalled dacha outside the urban settlement. This simple house surrounded by a small piece of land with flowers or vegetables belongs to an old tradition dating from the time before the Soviet era. The housing unit is normally composed by a single room, without facilities situated some hours travel from the city. The life of the people in the oversized urban developments after the 1960’s, has to be connected with a bipolar system made of work and services in the city and leisure and free time in the countryside, in the dachas. This dynamic way of seeing the living area included in a much bigger area than the urban settlement has to be considered as an important element for the futures developments of the city.
DACHAS AND THEIR ALLOTMENTS IN THE PERM REGION.
113
114
3.6 Recycling
Principally due to the chaotic property policy changes during the last 15 years, almost all the typologies that compose Perm and Russia have been neglected. Nobody really know what belongs to whom, nobody cares. The apparently lack of responsibility from inhabitants, becomes especially evident in semi-public spaces which are becoming definitively privatized. Becoming owners, inhabitants have now the possibility to become important players in the regeneration process. Therefore the regeneration of the main fabric of the city has to start at a grass roots level with inhabitants having a clear consciousness of their property rights. Tabula rasa projects don’t seem to be a good answer to the problem, having major social consequences due especially to the problem of relocalisation. We want to promote a sustainable recycling of the city, taking advantage of the already existing qualities of the places by regenerating them more then erasing them. Considering the seven typologies composing Perm gives at the same time an overview of the typologies composing the whole of Russia. Therefore sustainable projects or regeneration schemes in other cities such as Moscow or St. Petersburg, or also in other cities formerly within the USSR as Halle or Thuringia in East Germany could be used and applied to Perm in practically the same way. Two main factors have to be retained as a sustainable basis for urban recycling: the quality of the buildings and the connectivity with the urban network. The following typological summary will show the main qualities which should be kept for sustainable typological recycling.
115
URBAN SITUATION
PLOT DIVISION
TRADITIONAL
CENTRE
CONSTRUCTIVIST
TIMBER BARRACK
WORKER PALACE
KHRUSHCHOVKA
IFP 116
PUBLIC ENTRANCES TO THE BLOCK
THRESHOLDS
UNPLANNED PATHS
PLANNED PUBLIC SPACES
TRADITIONAL
CENTRE
CONSTRUCTIVIST
TIMBER BARRACK
WORKER PALACE
KHRUSHCHOVKA
IFP 117
PRIVATE SPACE
BABUSHKA’S SETTLEMENTS
MAIN BUILDINGS
PRIVATE ACCESS TO THE BUILDING
TRADITIONAL
CENTRE
CONSTRUCTIVIST
TIMBER BARRACK
WORKER PALACE
KHRUSHCHOVKA
IFP 118
UNPLANNED ELEMENTS
HOUSING
COMMON FACILITIES
COMMERCIAL
TRADITIONAL
CENTRE
CONSTRUCTIVIST
TIMBER BARRACK
WORKER PALACE
KHRUSHCHOVKA
IFP 119
ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS
URBAN DATCHA
U
A H C A RBAN D
IT K G N I BUILD
Your kit arrives ... we already put many of the components together for you!
Step 1: The foundation timbers are pre-notched and pre-drilled for easy assembly
Step2 : Add the pre-assembled upright structural supports.
Step3 : Tie diagonal steel support wires
Step 4: Now pre-notched timbers are assembled to form the headers.
Step5: We’ve put the trusses together for you. Simply attach them to the frame to finish the job. Now you have a finished structure for your very own urban datcha!
OFFICE BUILDING IN PERM CITY CENTRE. ARCHITECT S. SHAMARIN.
CITY CENTRE
The grid of the city centre shows a great ability to be self regenerated. This typology composed by a diversity of buildings both in terms of constructions quality and types, with the connectivity and the relation between them insured by a clear grid of street. New buildings integrate traditional housing, as well as new programs such as hotels, restaurants or offices, and are being built within the grid, maintaining the specific openness and permeability of the blocks. For preservation reasons, they often integrate parts of old houses or are built on historicist style.
SELF-MADE COTTAGE CONSTRUCTION IN GAIVA
122
TRADITIONNAL
As the typology of the city centre, the main factor of regeneration is the strong connectivity created by the grid system. Moreover the quality of the buildings allow for their almost complete reconstruction. In the city outskirts, timber housing settlements are currently being redeveloped. New cottages, expressing for individuality, are built on the site of former timber houses, sometimes as an extension of the existing. They are often standard houses bought from catalogues with an interior free to be designed by the owners, following their personal wishes.
BAUHAUS SCHOOL IN DESSAU. VALORISATION OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE OF THE XX CENTURY.
MOLOTOV
The constructivist quarter of Motovilika is now in a very bad state, but its uniqueness has led us think that a renovation and valorization should happened. The historical and cultural interests of this settlement are the main reasons to preserve and restore them. Modernist quarters and buildings such as Weisenhof in Stuttgart, Hansaviertel in Berlin or the Bauhaus in Dessau could be taken as examples of valorization of architecture of the early XX century. They are well maintained and contribute for a big part to image of the city. WORKER PALACES
Stalinist buildings are very robust and durable and their preservation is ensured for at least the next 50 years. Moreover their central situation and well defined spaces make them very appreciated from the inhabitants.
123
TOWN HOUSES
Timber barracks and komunalkas are such poor housing typologies that they should be urgently removed. Town houses are built in a higher standard and their layout allows for renovation, at least in areas where low density is appropriate, such as the city satellites for example. The composition of the living unit within a small open courtyard is however the most interesting quality which should be kept. While their renovation is not in any way appropriate, their urban layout reveals many qualities. The houses have a particular relationship with the courtyard, which can be easily shared or privatized by the inhabitants. A quick change is viable if the owner has awareness the possibilities.
TRANSFORMATION OF A KHRUSHCHOVKA 1-335 IN HUNGARY BY ADDING TWO FLOORS AND BALCONIES.
124
TRANSFORMATION OF PANEL HOUSINGS IN HALLE NEUSTADT BY DEMOLISHING SEVERAL PARTS OF THE BUILDING AND ADDING NEW BALCONIES. STEFAN FORSTER ARCHITEKTEN.
KHHRUSHCHOVKAS
Even if their construction is not sustainable, some studies show the possibilities of refurbishment. The easy transformation of living units for commercial use already shows the effects of cheap adaptation of this typology. A Danish fund for mansard homes in Russia in collaboration with Scandinavian companies shows that lifespan of khrushchovkas can be increased till 80 years. Extra floors were added, providing different apartment typologies, without moving the inhabitants. The new apartments have a positive effect not only on the building itself but on the whole area. Moreover the amount of money gained from the selling of the new dwellings in some cases allowed the renovations of the rest of the “squatted” khrushchovkas. In Germany, the shrinking of several cities has lead to projects of dedensification were storeys or parts of panel housing are being removed. The qualities of these flats are improved by adding extensions or balconies, and new openings are created in the slab, providing more light for the apartments. An OMA’s project for the quarter 75 in Moscow is another example of a non tabula rasa strategy, where paradoxically all the buildings are removed. Infrastructures such as paths, roads and public spaces are maintained, but the area is densified and new programs which cannot fit the Khrushovkas, such as offices, are added. Unfortunately, these examples remain still quite rare and are for the moment mostly engaged by foreign investors. The benefit of Russian investors being much bigger than in Western countries, they don’t accept to support such projects, but promote tabula rasa strategies, ensuring more profit. The role of the inhabitants becomes therefore important because they have now the possibility to stay and take part to the regeneration. TRANSFORMATION OF A KHRUSHCHOVKA QUARTER IN MOSCOW BY REMOVING THE BUILDINGS BUT KEEPING THE INFRASTRUCTURES AS PATHS AND ROADS AND THE OUTDOOR PUBLIC SPACES.
125
IMPROVED FLOOR PLANS
The high quality of their layout out and the superior construction ensure their survival for at least 50 years. However it is important to realize that this urban typology does not allow for very big density and has a negative effect on the external space. In Moscow, the office Buromoscow is already dealing with these buildings and proposes different façade designs, not only changing the esthetic, but also providing loggias and balconies. In France, housing towers are also being renovated with an increase of the living area, a thermal optimisation and an increase of natural light and could serve as positive example.
TRANSFORMATION OF HOUSING BLOCK - PARIS 17°, TOUR BOIS LE PRÊTRE.
126
127
128
4. Specific Perm
129
130
4.1 Perm multilayer
The different layers characterising the city, reveal a multi-polar system of several fragments. It is an Archipelago composed by its own centralities linked together by transport networks but spatially separated. The most important are Parkovy, Balatovo, the city centre, Motovilika and Sadovy. They have their own centralities, are composed of generic urban fabric and are thus sustainable. As they are not the only constituent of the whole city area, in the following study we will focus on the in-between areas in order to evaluate their nature and potentials to integrate new developments.
131
PANEL HOUSINGS VS STALIN BARACKS.
PANEL HOUSING VS STALIN TOWN HOUSES.
PANEL HOUSING VS WOODEN HOUSES.
132
COMPOSITE URBAN TYPOLOGIES, 1/100’000. TRADITIONAL TYPOLOGY NEO-CLASSICAL TYPOLOGY REVOLUTIONARY TYPOLOGY STALINIST BARAKS TYPOLOGY STALINIST HOUSES TYPOLOGY KHRUSHCHOVKAS TYPOLOGY IMPROVED FLOOR PLANS TYPOLOGY COMPOSITE TYPOLOGY
COMPOSITE TYPOLOGIES
The generic urban blocks are always dominated by a type of building. Theis typology is clearly recognisable and they can be categorized, block per block. Nevertheless, certain block of the city don’t seem to be dominated by a typology. They are composed of different types of buildings, making together one block, often in particular topographical situations. These particular blocks are mainly located around the two valleys crossing the city, Danilikha and Yegoshika.
133
GARAGES IN YEGOSHIKA VALLEY.
WOODEN HOUSES IN KHROKHALEVA.
GARAGES IN KHROKHALEVA.
134
UNPLANNED ELEMENTS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE CITY BLOCKS, 1/100’000. UNPLANNED ELEMENTS
UNPLANNED ELEMENTS
In Perm as in other russian cities, the hyper planned gave birth to the unplanned, as reaction. In every blocks of the city, unplanned structures such as auto-boxes, garages, ateliers or storages can be found. They are the result of the lack of flexibility offered by the planned structures. There, people have the space needed for storage or small businesses. Sometimes, the blocks don’t offer enough space for the unplanned. Structures are being built outside the block. In Perm, they colonized free spaces, mostly along the valleys. There, it was often too difficult to built concrete slabs, but easy to built self-made small structures. They form together fragments of city, only containing what the planned city couldn’t host.
135
ESPLANADE, MAIN PUBLIC SPACE OF PERM, 1.3 KILOMETER LONG.
KOMSOMOLSKY PROSPECT.
LEBEDEVA SQUARE IN MOTOVILIKA.
136
PUBLIC SPACES AND NETWORK, 1/100’000. MAIN AXES MAJOR PUBLIC SPACES
NETWORKS
The street networks are the result of the successive phases of planification. Due to the topography and the industrial geography, the main quarters composing Perm have different and independent urban layout. Thus, a few main streets are acting as connectors between those different quarters. Their major role within the city make them highly freqentend, but also very attractive in term of commercial activity. These axes are the skeleton of perm. It maintains and irrigate every city part and also connect all the major public spaces. This Network contains most of the representative parts of the city of Perm such as the commercial, cultural and administrative ones.
137
PRIVATE BUS COMPANY.
TRAM LINES IN URALSKAYA STREET.
TRAM IN LENINA STREET.
138
PUBLIC TRANSPORTS, 1/100’000. TRAM LINES TROLLEY BUS LINES BUS LINES RAIL
TRANSPORTS
The public transports are done by trams and trolley buses, completed by an important network of private buses serving a wider area within the city, the city satellites and the other cities of the region. Busses do not follow precise lines but serve stations along flexible lines following the passenger needs. The city centre as well as the two main other centres, Balatovo and Motovilika are distributed by a multiple homogeneous network of public transports. the areas in between, located around the valleys have fewer access to the public transports, making these areas more disconnected or even separated from the centres.
139
KIOSK SELLING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES.
TRANSFORMATION OF THE GROUNDFLOOR OF A KHRUSHCHOVKA IN A COMMERCIAL SURFACE.
STAIRCASES TO ACCESS TO THE TRANSFORMED GROUNDFLOOR OF A STALINIST BUILDING.
140
ACTIVITIES, 1/100’000. COMMERCIAL PLACES MARKETS CULTURE EDUCATION SPORT FACILITIES SHOPPING MALLS
ACTIVITIES
This map shows all commercial activities from the small shops to the big malls. These are located mainly along the important axes, making them especially active. Most of the commerces opened after the perestroika, changing radically the human flows within the city and transforming the more or less homogeneous city to a polarized one, with some part commercially very active and some others empty. Most of these activities took part in buildings being adapted to receive commercial uses. Khrushchovkas are the most transformed ones and improved floor plans the less ones. The schools and other educational facilities are on the contrary uniformly spread within the city. Their implementation follows the rules of the mikrorayon.
141
CHURCH IN MOTOVILIKA
PARK IN FRONT OF THE OPERA HOUSE.
CENTRAL MARKET.
142
sw am ps
Levshino Levshin L vs Lev L Levshino eev evs vevsh vs sshhin inoo
b f
b f
b f
Akulova
trees GEE BBRRID IDGGEE BBRRID IDG
Zakamsk Zakams Zakamsk Zakamsk
Parkovy
supermarket VIVAT
PARKO
U VY AVEN
market
E
culture ultu ure culture ture palace palace
balatovpark park par pa p ar balatov park balatov
Kondratovo
f
circus cir cu circus cu .circus
.trudba square
Motovilik Motovilika M ka Motovilika M oto oototov vivilika . mall .crystal university Saad y ool olpar 77 7a 7rrkk .school 77 SSadovy go orki or o rrk pa park p ark ..gorki .g gg go or o rrk kkkiilpark ttower wer w we e er of ofdeat deat death d hh supermarket Centre Cent C en nt ttrrre ree .tower re ccentral ce nttra nt trallma ma m marrk rke kCe ke eCen t en tower towe tto oow owe ow wer er e rrof death Danilikaceccent h ccentra central centr ce een en n ntra ntr mark m marke eet et Centr entre nntr tr ttowerof tower ofdeath death de centra entra e en n nt ttra trral all m mar ma mark arrrkket kCen ke eC et tten eath th hh Centr Cent C Ce entr e nt n ntr t re r e sta st s t tadium ta adi a dium diu di d i iu um m Centre Cent C en n nt tre t tr re r e Centr C tr re r e goznak g go ozna znak nak na akk ak Ce C e entre n nt r re e g go gozna goznak g goz oznak oz zzna znak n na nak Cmeen Cen Ce nntre trm lsk gozn ozn o nak kk gg go ozna ozn na n ak Komsomolski Koms Komsomo Komsomols Komsomolsk Ko K omsom omols omolsk lskki ki kk Kom K Ko oom sossomo so gg zn znak nak .goznak ggoz gozna gozn na akk ak Kom K Ko om msomolsk m .stadium .stad .st .s ssttta sta ium Komsomolski K oom ms som ols lski kakddiiu ki
.fountain cross shop hop op pattid theatre th heatre h hea heat eat atr ttre rre ed on kkios kio kiosk ki io ios os o osk sskus k s h theatr da an a ng ge eiiosk er ro ou o u nn ikikio s sta ati ion ocon on da d dan an a n g urs with s acordeon su permarket maddeon m t n ggger wi ithhsupermarket on .singer st cro st o kiosk iio os osk o skus sk ctio osk o .station st sta io on onk .black sup supermarket .park k of o f stones stone sto st s one on e khrushchovka par p r k of f ston s sto o n shop op p b .central ccentral centra ce en entr ent ntral n ntra allm al ma m mar market mark marke rke rrk ke ett entral nt tttr tr rra al ma mark aarke ark ar rk kke ke et f ccce t TTRR AAFF CJJAAMM IIC FFIC
b f
T T EEEEETT ET TTRRRE RE AASSST ST YA Ico Ae cNol ol olis oli lli lis ise se sseu eum eu um SKA NN N Iis ccol co oli oNo liis llis iise se sis eum eu e um mm CHE LLELEc IS co o oli ol l li liseum liseu lis iseum i seum seu s se eum e eu u um m .zum T E L ETTTT UNIS .coliseum ccol oliseum oli o li lis ise iiseum sseu se um mm TREEEEEE KOM drama dr dra ama AAASSSTTRR E T INIIN IN NN dLdram STR.Ural .drama dr d dra rLELELNELNENIN ra eNAsupe ssupermarket up er ket et VIVAT VI .polytechnical V Nre dangerous dangerou us .d hotelrrkke ttheatre eIIN da d an angerous angero a ngero nge ro ou o us u s
b f
b f b f
b b f b f f supermarket VIVAT
T CT PROSPE IP C P S O R T C P S O R PR P SK K K P T LS CT P C SP OS RO P T C SK O R OL K R L P S MO C K OL S P LS T O CT O RO PR M OL O S L OM O S MO O L M M SOM M O MS S OL O KO OM S OM MS M KO OM O SO OM M O MS OM KO
b f b f
de ena m o Pr oop opera o era oope opera ppe pe per pera ra aa .gallery .opera oper pe erra era e aa .zoo oope
es b .church tri b f.vostaniya square s f u ind b
TRAFFIC JAM
M M JAAM JA sho shop sho opping ppin ppi ing ccent nre ntre shopping oop pp ng g ce centre ntr ree CJ IC FIIC FF F F A b TR b TRAAF sport centre R b bf T b f f f f n
.
Balatovo Balato B aalato alatovo al ala la vo vo Baala Ba aallatov latov latov lat ato at tto ovvo ov vvo BBal Ba aal ala ato taato ovto ov vooov BBala Bala Balat atov to tov oov ooo B Balat alato tov tovo ov B Ba a alato tovo o vo o Balato Ba B aalllat atovvo Kosmonavtov METRO
LANDMARKS, 1/100’000.
LANDMARKS
In october 2008, we asked students of the Perm State University to describe their journey to university. The mapping of the main elements structuring their ways highlights several important points of attention. The major ones are the main public spaces, the cultural buildings as the opera house, the drama theatre or the art gallery or the Goznak factory. Theiy confirm our thoughts, no one of the sixty students talked about any place located within the collision strips.
143
RUBBISH THROWN IN A VALLEY.
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING DANILIKHA VALLEY.
VIEW OF IVA VALLEY.
144
TOPOGRAPHY, 1/100’000. MAIN FORESTS
LANDSCAPE
The most specific element of Perm is probably its complex topography. The city is located on plateaus, at about fifty meters above the level of the Kama river. Several valleys formed by the erosion of rivers leading to the Kama are cutting the city in three main parts. on the western part are the districts of Parkovy and Balatovo, on the central part is the city centre and on the eastern part is Motovilika. There are very few bridges connecting them, and most of them have been built in the last 10 years. The water of the rivers and the lakes and the forests are extremely polluted. The valley are often used by the citizens as well as the municipality as garbage dump. The earth from different building sites is transported there fulfilling the valleys and modifying their original shapes.
145
146
4.2 Collision strips
COLLISION STRIPS
The non generic blocks are mostly located where the generic ones encounter the particular topography of the valleys. Together they form recognisable strips, crossing the city following the valleys. These collision strips are from different natures, built, not built, planned, not planned, crossable, or not crossable. Their natural and artificial landscape is mainly composed by heterogeneous living areas, where several typologies are mixed together. Bridges, dams, railways lines and heating pipes subdivide the strips in more or less independent parts. The generic city has developed itself as an over system negating these strips seen as urban limits. The result is a part of the city subordinated to the main urban system, undergoing a lack of connection even if surrounded by networks, isolated from the centers and the main programs and being at the edge of under developed landscapes.
147
NEW TOWER IN DANILIKHA VALLEY.
VIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AQUARELI.
WITHIN THE COLLISION STRIPS
The urbanized areas within the collisions strips are either located on the edges, between the well defined urban areas and the valleys, or in the middle of the strips in an island situation. They both share a lack of connectivity with the central parts of the city. The former dachas and gardens have been for an important part abandoned because of the loss of qualities of these spaces. The valleys are now being filled with garbage and left over ground coming from the building sites of the city are radically changing the valley scapes. These new landscapes are often colonized with unplanned structures as garages or car parks. Non-places, edges and islands are particular urban conditions found within the strips. NON-PLACES,
The non-places are the place were the unplanned finds its place. The planned city has never been supposed to provide space for this, but in Perm, special conditions gave space to the unplanned. Unbuildable places reamained free to be colonized by small structures such as storage or garages. They are found there in a great number, resulting from the lack of private space provided by the housing types. EDGES
The edges are the place where the generic urban fabric meets the topography, changing its morphology. This edge condition is characterized by a troubled urban landscape, an unstructured street network mostly composed of cul-de-sacs and a lack of connectivity and facilities. They are the edges of the generic urban fabric, mostly located on the valley sides.
148
SKI JUMPS IN YEGOSHIKA VALLEY.
ISLANDS
A part of the urbanized areas located within the stripes are former industrial city satellites, conceived as independent island. They were originally formed by the pair industry-housing to host worker communities. The urban growth of the city centre has reached them but they anyway remain isolated. They are cut by transportation corridors, valleys, or industrial sites. The privatization provoked the rupture of the pair industry-housing. The housing quarters have now become independent dormitory areas, not related to any other local activity. The lack of programs and connections isolate them from the other parts of the city. They are in an island situation and present significant discrepancies with the generic Perm.
ZONE OF ENCOUNTER AROUND A VALLEY WHERE ALMOST EVERY TYPOLOGIES MEET.
149
150
151
152
153
RIVER DANILIKHA
ABANDONED DACHAS IN DANILIKHA VALLEY.
SWAMPS AROUND KHROKHALEVA
154
DANILIKHA VALLEY, LANDSCAPE, 1/25’000. RIVERS
LANDSCAPE
The landscape within the collision stripes is hectic. It is indeed the major actors of the collision. Three rivers, Danilikha, Yegoshika and Iva formed these valleys. Their slopes are sometimes steep sometimes not, but they remain hardly accessible. Above them are located the plateaus were the city was built. These valleys are now important cuts within the city, and the bridge are beeing built to overcome this. The rivers having many affluents, the orientation is also not facilited, many tentacles of the valleys are acting as micro-cuts within the city, making the situation in the edges more complex.
155
YEGOSHIKA VALLEY IN WINTER.
YEGOSHIKA VALLEY IN SUMMER.
YEGOSHIKA VALLEY AND THE MICRORAYON SADOVY.
156
YEGOSHIKA AND IVA VALLEYS, LANDSCAPE, 1/25’000.
STRIP SECTION
GRAVEYARDS/FORESTS RIVERS
157
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING THE RIVER DANILIKHA.
TRANSSIBERIAN RAILWAY LINE ALONG DANILIKHA VALLEY.
PEDESTRIAN PATH IN DANILIKHA VALLEY.
158
DANILIKHA VALLEY, NETWORKS, 1/25’000. GENERIC GRID RETICULAR BETWORK INFORMAL NETWORK RAIL
LAYERING OF NETWORKS
Within the the collision stripe of Danilikha, the generic street network doesn’t exist anymore. In this area of encounter, the streets are not structured in a grid system. They are reticular streets leading from the main streets to the buildings. Most of them are dead ends resulting from the encounter with the topography. From there a complex network of paths are crossing the valleys allowing people to go from one place to another without going to the main centres. Thus there three types of networks can be recognised: -The generic grid. -The resticular network. -The informal network of paths.
159
STAIRCASES IN YEGOSHIKA VALLEY.
MAINTENANCE OF THE PATHS BY THE USERS.
HEATING PIPE CROSSING YEGOSHIKA RIVER AND PROVIDING A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE.
160
YEGOSHIKA AND IVA VALLEYS, NETWORKS, 1/25’000. GENERIC GRID RETICULAR BETWORK INFORMAL NETWORK
LAYERING OF NETWORKS
-The generic grid.
-The resticular network.
-The informal network of paths.
161
“COLLISION” IN DANILIKHA.
TYPOLOGICAL MIXITY IN DANILIKHA (STALIN, PANELS, CONTEMPORARY TOWER).
AUTO-BOXES ON AN EDGE OF IVA VALLEY.
162
DANILIKHA VALLEY, BUILDINGS, 1/25’000. STALINIST BARAKS STALINIST HOUSES KHRUSHCHOVKAS IMPROVED FLOOR PLANS GARAGES, DACHAS, ETC...
PLANNED, UNPLANNED
In the valleys, the unplanned has found its place. There people can increase their Danilika valley is crossed by the transsiberian railway line. This line is a major cut within the city, but at the same time it act as a magnet for unplanned structures. Big areas around the line cannot be urbanized and are thus colonized by small constructions. On the edges, the mikrorayons are following each other. They are not part of the city grid anymore.
163
GARAGES AND SKI JUMPS IN YEGOSHIKA VALLEY.
EDGE PATH ALONG SADOVI.
AUTO-BOXES SOMEWHERE IN A COLLISION STRIP.
164
YEGOSHIKA AND IVA VALLEYS, BUILDINGS, 1/25’000.
UPLANNED BUILDING
STALINIST BARAKS STALINIST HOUSES KHRUSHCHOVKAS IMPROVED FLOOR PLANS GARAGES, DACHAS, ETC...
UNPLANNED CONSTRUCTIONS
PLANNED BUILDINGS
165
APOCALYPTIC LANDSCAPE IN DANILIKHA.
FORMER DACHAS AND VEGETABLES GARDENS IN DANILIKHA VALLEY.
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING A RIVER IN KHROKHALEVA.
166
DANILIKHA VALLEY, SITUATIONS, 1/25’000. NON-PLACES EDGES ISLANDS VEGETABLES GARDENS RIVERS
NON-PLACES, EDGES AND ISLANDS
The inhabited areas within the strips can be defined as edges or islands weither they are an extension of the generic fabric or not. The edges are the encounter of generic urban fabric with limits such as valleys, railway lines or industrial sites. The islands are isolated parts of the city, often only accessible from one street, surrounded by hardly crossable limits. The non-places are not inhabited. They are mostly made of unplanned structures and buildings such as garages and storages.
167
WOODEN HOUSES IN KHROKHALEVA.
PANEL HOUSINGS AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN KHROKHALEVA.
DACHAS IN YEGOSHIKA VALLEY.
168
YEGOSHIKA AND IVA VALLEYS, SITUATIONS, 1/25’000. NON-PLACES
NON-PLACES, EDGES AND ISLANDS
-Non-places
EDGES ISLANDS VEGETABLES GARDENS GRAVEYARDS/FORESTS RIVERS
-Edges
-Islands
169
170
4.3 Typology
Within the strips, their is no typological prodominance. The result is a mixture between parts of the generic typologies. They meet in the collision strips and often form together more than a conglomerate of standardized buildings. In the case of the islands, they give form to another type of urban entity, much bigger than a block, made of a variety of buildings and spaces. DANILIKHA ISLAND
Danilikha is a good example example to illustrate the characteristics of the islands. As most of its neighbors, Danilikha is made of the mix of three typologies. The Stalinist town houses, the Khrushchovkas and the improved floor plans. The inside of the island is made of fragments of typologies, keeping their major characteristics while the surroundings are the result of the encounter of typologies and limits. Buildings in the surroundings form together a belt being the limit between the city and the nature.
171
172
5. Strategy
173
174
5.1 Strip Strategy
POTENTIAL OF THE COLLISISION STRIPES
The potential qualities of the specific landscape of Perm, the remaining space free to be built and the geometric proximity of the stripes with the main centralities lead us to propose a development scheme of these areas. The collision stripes have the potential to act as atractors for the inhabitants and the developers within the urban area and not only in the city centre. They allow a more sustainable development and could enable the regeneration process. The development of a strategy for the collision stripes could thus bring the specific above the generic. We develop a strategy for the collision strips, flexible in the way that it could adapt itself to the different possible futures of the city. We defined four possible futures and will show for them four different levels of strategy.
175
SCENARIO EXTENSION OF THE GENERIC
A possible future for the places located within the strips would be to be simply connected to the generic fabric of the city. The dismantling of important industrial sites located close to it would activate the neighboring areas and help the process of regeneration of these areas.
SCENARIO ISLANDS
Another possibility would be to keep these places disconnected from the city centre by offering them more authonomy. Being islands, they could become part of the archipelago, taking benefit from the other parts but becoming also essential to the whole.
SCENARIO MIX
The possibility to mix the two former scenarios seems the more adapted one. Some of the parts of the strips have to be considered as being part of the generic and have to orient themselves towards existing centres. But other places such as Danilikha or Khrokhaleva are hardly connectable with existing centres. Therefore, we decide to give them a new identity, to transform them in sustainable islands, to open them to the valleys and to link them together to create a new system within the main system. Among these islands are also potential islands that are now these nonplaces such as industries or garages. With their situation, size and spatial properties they could become new islands, built in one or several pieces but being one island, part of the archipelago.
176
.c
II LU VO TS
PER M
CE
BAL
A
.m
TOVILIK
OVO AT
MO
SADOVY
.d
KI PROSPECT
.g
.s
RE
PARKOVY
.c
.g .o .th S OL OM MS KO
.t
.p
RE NT
.s
STRUCTURE
The strategy is conceived with and for the elements composing the strips, but remains in straight relationship with the major elements of Perm such as centres as well as industrial sites and connections. The strategy for the strip aims to create an additive part to the existing system being specific. It is not a parralel system working in autarcy. On the basis of this map, one strategy is presented for every scenario, all of them following the idea of the multiple islands.
177
.c
II LU VO TS
CE
PER M
A OL SK
BAL
SADOVY
.d
I PROSPECT
OVO AT
RE
.m
TOVILIK
.s
OM
.g
MO
.g .o .th MS
PARKOVY
.c
KO
.t
.p
RE NT
.s
SHRINKING OF THE ISLANDS
This first scenario postulate a future without strong modification. The number of inhabitants will remain stable after the last period of shrinking and the public investments will remain almost inexistants. The generic fabric of the city will be regenerated, in continuity of the existing typologies. The so-called edges and islands, remaining disconnected, with an increase of social problems and a lack of program will shrink, increasing the surface of the city made of non-places. Strips will slowly came back to nature.
178
G
.c
II LU VO TS
PER M
CE
OL SK
KH A ILI
SADOVY
RE
OM
.m
A
.s
TOVILIK
.g .o .th
.d
I PROSPECT
DAN
.g
OVO AT
.s VL
ADIM I
KH
KY
KHAL RO
RS
A EV
BAL
MO
.c
MS
PARKOVY
KI
KO
.t
.p
RE NT
OR
GRASSROOTS DEVELOPMENT
As the former one, this scenario postulate a stable demographic situation without growth. Small public investments are made in particular places. Within the Strips, islands are characterised by the placement of urban dachas. Special programs will be added in order to specify the different islands. They all will be connected by the already existing network of path. The economic situation is not getting better as industries remain shrinking. In order to save money, inhabitants will came back to farmership. The regeneration of the vegetables gardens within the valleys will play a positive role for the islands.
179
G
.c
CE
PER M
KH A ILI
II
ADIM I
RS
DAN
KY
A EV
BAL
.SD
KH
KHAL RO
.SD
.d
VL
.SD
.s
LU VO TS
OVO AT
A
.g
SADOVY
I PROSPECT
.SD
.SD
TOVILIK
PARKOVY
.m
RE
.SD
MO
.ci . SD .th
.a .o .s
KI
.p
RE NT
SK OL OM MS KO
.t
OR
SUPER DACHAS
The number of inhabitants will slightly increase as the economic situation is getting better. The city will benefit from new public and private investments. The Super Dachas will be integrated to the island system, playing the role of interface between the island, the valleys and the neighboring islands. They will act as pioneer and enable the process of cleaning of the valleys. A new economy will emerge within the islands, made of recycling and agricultural ressources. New programs such as social housings, hostels and other public programs will appear, all taking benefit from the island situation. The informal system of path will be developed, becoming a major axe specific to this new economy, connecting the different markets and islands.
180
G
.c
KY
CE
PER M
KH A ILI
II
ADIM I
KHAL
RS
DAN
A EV
BAL
.SD
KH
RO
.SD
.d
VL
.SD
.s
LU VO TS
OVO AT
A
.g
SADOVY
KI PROSPECT
.SD
.SD
TOVILIK
PARKOVY
.m
RE
.SD
MO
.c . SD .th
.g .o .s
KI
.p
RE NT
S OL OM MS KO
.t
OR
EXPANSION
The last scenario postulates a increase of the population. Public and private investments are developing the former industrial sites totally free to be built. The specificity of the valley make them economically, culturally and environmentally interesting. They are activated with many public programs while the edges and islands are being redeveloped and nonplaces transformed into housing areas.
181
s ISL.sAND
HA
s
GAR
UP
.
M
NS DE
ISLAND
s
.
s
.
S
s
M
.
s
s
.
.
AR K E
T
s
.
s
.
.
NS DE
s
.
.
s
NS DE
s
GAR
.
s
.
s
s
.
.
GAR
s
.
s
.
s
.
.
.
s
s
.
s
.
s
s
.
ROAD
D AN
s
.
.
.
.
AD RO
M
NS DE
s
NS DE
CI FI C
s
.
C HA
182
M
s
.
AR K E
T
P ER
DA
SU
s
. NS DE
NS DE
M
NS DE
s
E SP .s
GAR
S UP GAR
.
AN D SL
I
s
.
.
s
NS DE
C HA
NS DE
DA
NS DE
M NS DE
s s
.
s
.
s
s
.
.
.
.
s
.
s
.
GAR
GAR
A
.
ISL
AD
DAC
O -R
ER
D OA -R
AR K E
.
.
D
NS DE
A
SU
ISL NS DE GAR
s
GAR
s
AD RO D-
.
T
s
.
s
s
M
s
.
s
IS
GAR
HA
s
.
s
.
s
.
.
LA N
.
s
.
GAR
s
.
.
s
.
s
.
s
.
s
.
GAR
DOA AD - R
s
.
.
GAR
T
AR K E
s
.
AR K E
s
.
s
N
s
.
s
.
K AR E
s
.
.
ISLA
s
.
s
T
s
.
ND
ROAD - ROAD- ROA
R DAC
AD - ROAD - RO D - ROAD ROA
ROAD - ROAD - ROAD - ROAD PE
s
C IF IC D - R ON AD - ROA AD- RO CONNECTI ROAD - ROAD - RO .s .
SU P ER
NS DE
.
HA
s
.
s
.
s
s
.
GAR
- RO
GAR
s
.
ROA D-
s
E SP
s
s
s
.
s
.
-
GAR
.
O AD
M
SU NS DE
A
NS DE
A
s
s
s
.
s
.
ND
RO AD
s
.
T
ISL
s
.
s
.
s
.
.
s
s
.
s
.
AR K E
M
.
s
.
AR K E
s
D
AD RO
I SL
s
s
.
s
.
s
.
T
s
ND
GAR
s
.
.
.
GAR
s
.
s
NS DE
T
AR K E
ISL
s
.
s
HA
s
. .
ND
ROAD -ROAD OAD -
s
s
.
D R DAC
.
T
s
.
AD -
.
s
.
R DAC
RHA O
s
.
PE
SA U
O -R
-R
M
s
- ROAD
PE
s
.
AD -RO
s
.
ROAD
.
AR K E
T
ER D
.
AC
s
GA
RD
E NS
u
.
u A
ET RK
NS
G A R DE
NS
DE
SU R DA
u
.
u
.
u
.
PE
M
.
A
ISL
ND
CH
A
5.2 Islands
u .u
.
GAR
ISLAND STRATEGY
The project on the islands is to built what has never been built. Complete the project by actinvating the public spaces with small interventions specifying the different areas. In order to become one entity, an independant part of the system, the island has to receive as the other pieces the elements currently lacking. The first elements to be added will be the urban dacha, with the aim of characterising semi public spaces and activating them by gathering the inhabitants together. During our interviews, we noticed that every centre had its formal public space, a spatial landmark being of high importance. Therefore, we propose to add the the islands a formal public space. The super dacha, will be biggest actor of improvement, acting in the valley as well as in the island and being directly connected to other island through the network of paths.
183
URBAN DACHAS
The urban dacha, also proposed in the generic courtyards of the city is a simple and cheap structure made of wood, allowing inhabitants to collectively share a space destinated to the maintenance of their outdoor spaces or simply used as a shelter to share a tea or a vodka. Added to this, underused places within the islands can be specified by performing small interventions such as gardening places or planting pots areas.
SUPER DACHAS
In order to provide a common specificity to the islands, we propose to link them together to form a network parallel to the main one. Specific, oriented towards the valleys. For this, we will only emphasize the existing network of path developed by the inhabitants to cross the valleys to excahnge between the settlements. The network will link elements specific to the islands acting as hubs. These elements, added to the islands are called Super Dachas. They are infrastructures, being the link between the urban and the nature. They provide gardening places close to the city, and fill in the lack of products destinated to the local markets. These farms will act as pioneer within the valleys, beeing actors of their cleaning. The Super dacha is a specific answer to Perm’s particular landscape, showing the potential of the valleys and gathering communities of the collision strips together.
184
TATIANA AND HER URBAN DACHA. PERM JULY 2009.
NADIA AND HER VEGETABLES GARDEN IN MOTOVILIKA. PERM, MAY 2010.
SWETLANA PREPARING KHRENOVINA IN THE SUPER DACHA OF DANILIKHA. PERM, OCTOBER 2012.
185
Bibliography
Aureli, P. V. (2008). Towards the archipelago. Log 11. New York: Anyone corporation. Aureli, P. V. (2006). Paradigm Moscow, redefining the peoples metropolitan consciousness. Rotterdam: The Berlage Institute. Andrusz, G. (1987) In: Engel, B. (2006). Public space in the Blue Cities in Russia. Progress in Planning . 66 pp. 334-354. Bater, J.H. In: Goodrich, S. & Ruble, B. (1997). From “Soviet” to “European” Yaroslavl: Changing Neighbourhood Structure in Post-Soviet Russian Cities. Urban Studies . 34 pp. 1085-1107. Belousov, V. N. In: Engel, B. (2006). Public space in the Blue Cities in Russia. Progress in Planning . 66 pp. 334-354. Business. (26 June 2006) ‘The Last Khrushchev Apartment Will Become a Monument in Moscow’. http://www.business.su/chsdnw. php?chsdnew=1972 (accessed 07 Novembre 2008)[in Russian]. Butler, S. & Khakhalin, A. (2003). Improving Real Estate Markets in the Perm Region. Washington: World Bank. Bystrykh J. (2008). Rereading the city. Unpublished Thesis. University of LSE London. Colton, T. (1995) Moscow: Governing the Socialist Metropolis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. In: Goodrich, S. & Ruble, B. (1997). From “Soviet” to “European” Yaroslavl : changing neighbourhood Structure in Post-Soviet Russian Cities. Urban Studies. 34, (1997) pp. 1085-1107.
188
Dimiriyev A.A. (1889). Studies in the History of Perm, the principal Town of the Province from the Foundation of the Settlement to 1845. In: State Archives of the city Perm Region. (1998). Perm. 19th – 20th c.c Photograph Album Second, revised version. Perm: State Archives of Perm Region. Dolgy, W. In: Engel, B. (2006). Public space in the Blue Cities in Russia. Progress in Planning . 66 pp. 334-354. Engel, B. (2006). Public space in the Blue Cities in Russia. Progress in Planning . 66 pp. 334-354. French, R. A. In : Engel, B. (2006). Public space in the Blue Cities in Russia. Progress in Planning . 66 pp. 334-354. Gladyshev V. (2008). Interview. [Interview by Buson O. & de Morsier G. September 2008]. Golubchikov, O. (2004). Urban Planning in Russia: Towards the Market. European Planning Studies. 12(2) pp. 229-247. Goodrich, S. & Ruble, B. (1997). From “Soviet” to “European” Yaroslavl : changing neighbourhood Structure in Post-Soviet Russian Cities. Urban Studies. 34, (1997) pp. 1085-1107. Gulyaeva T. (2008). Interview. [Interview by Buson O. & de Morsier G. September 2008]. Jung K. C. (1989). Planung des sozialistischen Stadt, Hannes Meyer in des Sowjetunion 1930-1936. In: Bauhaus-Archiv & Deutsches Architekturmusem, Frankfurt am Main. (1989). Khrushchev, N. S., & Talbott, S. (1974). Khrushchev remembers; the last testament. Boston, Little, Brown. In: Bystrykh J. (2008). Rereading the city. Unpublished Thesis. University of LSE London. Kopp, A. (1967). Ville et Révolution, Architecture et Urbanisme Soviétiques des Années Vingt. Paris: Anthropos. Matthews, M. In: French, R. A. & Hamilton, F.E.I. (1979). The socialist City, Spatial Structure and Urban Policy. John Wiley & Sons. New York. Mozel K. (1864). Material of Geografy and statistics of Russia: Perm Province. In: State Archives of the city Perm Region. (1998). Perm. 19th – 20th c.c Photograph Album Second, revised version. Perm: State Archives of Perm Region. Pavel, E. (2001). Le développement de l’Oural sous l’ère soviétique. [Online]. Regard sur l’Est. Available from: http://www.regard-est.com/ home/breve_contenu.php?id=224 [accessed: 3rd September 2008].
189
Renaud, B. (1995a) ‘The Real Estate Economy and the Design of Russian Housing Reforms, Part I’. Urban Studies. 32(8). pp. 1247-1264. Rietdorfm, W. & Liebmann, H. (1994). Grosssiedlung in Mittel und Osteuropa – Expertise Regio. Beiträge des IRS. In : Engel. B. (…..) Semyannikov V. (2006). The history of Perm. [Online]. Available from: http://www.metrosphera.ru/history/streets . [Accessed: 30th October 2008]. Smoljar, I.M. In: Engel, B. (2006). Public space in the Blue Cities in Russia. Progress in Planning . 66 pp. 334-354. State Archives of the city Perm Region. (1998). Perm. 19th – 20th c.c Photograph Album Second, revised version. Perm: State Archives of Perm Region. Staub, A. (2005). St. Petersburg double live. The planners’ versus People’s City. Journal of urban History, Vol. 31 No. 3. March 2005, pp. 334-354. Tolzinner, P. (1989). Biography. Unpublished essay. Berlin: Bauhaus Archiv. Verkholantsev, V. S. (1913). The Town of Perm, Its Past and Present. In: State Archives of the city Perm Region. (1998). Perm. 19th – 20th c.c Photograph Album Second, revised version. Perm: State Archives of Perm Region.
190