English appendix*
*T he annex provides some of the articles from the book, translated into English.
279
The price of a name
280
Moscow has always had special significance to the people of Russia. Since the foundation of the capital it held a sacred status - the city never surrendered to enemies, flourished, not only attracted, but literally lured with its atmosphere, lifestyle, way of life as a whole. The attitude toward the city significantly changed in the period of Perestroika, which was associated with a change in Moscow’s status characteristics: the heart of the country, as many have come to believe, turned into a soulless mechanism, regularly pumping and even partly accumulating huge financial flows. This situation has certainly not left the non-Muscovite Russians indifferent, causing a lot of conflicting feelings. Prosperity and opulence of Muscovites was seen as snobbery and gluttony. In either case, no matter how selfish and unnatural in its manifestations Moscow seemed at first sight, one cannot deny the fact that in reality has existing economic opportunities and relatively good living conditions, which is especially evident in comparison to Russian regions. Modern Moscow stands among global cities and successfully competes with them, provides quality services, partially due to a developed knowledge economy. Major cash flows move through the city, risks are minimized, and social control is high. In other words, it is possible to gain many benefits, however, at the capital-city prices. While Moscow seeks to replicate successful development models of the world’s megacities, other Russian cities follow it. Despite the sometimes biased attitude, Russians from all over the country flock to the golden-domed capital, and the reasons are numerous: for improving the quality of life, for education and career prospects, or simply for the status of a “Muscovite”. Today it is possible to state that Moscow is a real brand, and an expensive one. Having residence in the capital, or at least work on the territory of Moscow is associated with a number of benefits, both obvious and not so much. Due to the fact that New Moscow recently acquired “capital” status, it is easy enough to confirm the fact of the brand’s privileges spread onto new territory, and while ignoring the external factors — to calculate the value of renaming, “the price of the name”. Next, we present a method of calculating the price of the «New Moscow» name tag and give an assessment of the results with a full structural analysis.
English appendix
Vsevolod Okin
Methodology The basis of the methodology for determining new value of the former territory of Moscow region territory, established after the ceding to the historical city, and the renaming into “New Moscow”, lies on the assumption that the prior average value of the land located within the boundaries of current Troitsky and Novomoskovsky administrative areas (TiNAO), and in Greater Moscow area, differed little from one other. Metaphorically, the result of adding value to underdeveloped land (to this day) could be called brand effect. The price per square meter in the new metropolitan counties increased without any essential change — no visible improvement of transport links has happened, no obvious points of attraction have appeared, cash flows are not generated in the necessary amount. During the calculations, data from 2013 from the cadastral register of land plots on the attached territory was used. The relevance of this data is confirmed through the following: under the new scheme of land tax, the amount of taxes is determined exactly in accordance with the cadastral value of land, the evaluation system of which is regularly adjusted since the Government of Moscow is interested in maximizing tax revenue. Thus, the assumption is born that the cadastral value of land effectively reflects all changes in market conditions. Using the data collected a year after ceding of new territories allows to see the net effect— not resorting to more complex multivariate models with a large number of controlled variables, it can be said that there were on significant changes during this period. For the accuracy of the experiment, we evaluated the total aggregate represented at the territories of New Moscow (more than 200 000 land plots were considered) and the Moscow region (over 1 800 000 plots). In this sample land plots differ by type of permitted use (TPU), of which there are 17. TPU determine economic potential of land, thus its price and the amount of tax revenue received from the territory. Of the 17 types we have identified 12 that somehow contribute to the generation of cash flow and, accordingly, directly affect the value of the land. Also, to improve the accuracy of the analysis, each of the compared areas — we are talking about areas of TiNAO and Moscow region — was divided into two zones. The «division» of TiNAO is obvious: the Novomoskovsky administrative area and the Troitsky administrative area (110 000 or 92 000 plots, respectively). Zoning of the Moscow region went as follows: Zone 1 is the space between the Moscow Ring Road and the notional boundary drawn at a distance of 15–20 km from the Ring Road (539 000 plots), Zone 2 — a territory outside the notional boundary (1 313 000 sites). Novomoskovsk County and Zone 2 are located 15–20 km away from Moscow Ring Road, so we have reason to consider them similar.
281
Definition
1
Land plots designed to accommodate mid-and high-rise residential buildings
2
Land plots intended for low-rise residential buildings, including individual residential development
3
Land plots intended for placement of garages and parking lots
4
Land plots intended for country-house construction, horticultural and vegecultural areas
5
Land plots intended for the placement of trade objects, food and consumer services
6
Land plots intended for hotels
7
Land plots intended for office buildings for commercial and business activities
8
Land plots intended for buildings of recreational and health-improving purpose
9 10 11
Land plots intended for industrial and administrative buildings, industry constructions, public utilities-, logistics-, food supply-, marketing- and procurement structures Land plots intended for power plants, facilities that service them Land plots intended for ports, water- and railway stations, road stations, airports, airfields, air terminals
12
Plots for water objects
13
Land plots intended for development of mineral resources, locating railways, highways, artificial inland waterways, piers, wharves, railway and highway deviations, waterways, pipelines, cable, radio relay and air communication lines, aerial power lines, structural elements of buildings, microwave-, airlines, and lines of wired radio, aerial power lines and structural elements of buildings, objects indispensable to the operation, maintenance, construction, reconstruction, development of on-land and underground buildings, structures, devices, transport, energy and communications; placement of surface facilities and infrastructure of satellite communication, space and military facilities
14
Land plots occupied by specially protected territories and objects, including urban forests, squares, parks, and gardens
15
Land plots intended for agricultural use
16
Land for streets, avenues, squares, highways, alleys, boulevards, outposts, lanes, passages, dead ends; land reserve plots; land occupied by water bodies, withdrawn from circulation or limited in circulation in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation; land for buffer zones of water bodies, canals, reservoirs and embankments
17
Land plots intended to accommodate administrative buildings, facilities of education, science, health and social welfare, physical culture and sport, culture, art, religion
*Type of permitted use
282
English appendix
TPU*
Two zones of New Moscow The valuation of renaming of the territory itself is based on the comparison of average prices per square meter of land in Novomoskovsky administrative area and Troitsky administrative area with the average prices in Zone 1 and Zone 2, respectively. Moreover, the comparison does not take place using average prices, widespread throughout the territory, but separately for each of the 12 TPU in Novomoskovsky administrative area, marked by us as relevant. To do this, we deduct the relevant average cost per square meter of land for each TPU in Novomoskovsky administrative area/Troitsky administrative area; corresponding to the average cost per square meter in Zone 1 / Zone 2; we multiply the resulting difference for each TPU by the entire territory of land of each TPU and add the results. Thus, we separately estimate the cost for Novomoskovsky administrative area and Troitsky administrative area, by adding which we get the total value of the name «New Moscow». Here, p is the average cost per square meter of the land, i is for the type of permitted use in each zone, and S is the total area of land for each TPU in the Novomoskovsky administrative area and the Troitsky administrative area. In accordance with the above-mentioned list of the of permitted types of use, i takes the values of 1–9, 13, 15 and 17. We also assessed the statistical significance of the difference obtained for each TPU using Student’s t-test for two independent samples with different variances. The null hypothesis is that the difference is not statistically significant. In other words, if for one of the TPU we obtain a positive difference between Novomoskovsky administrative area and Zone 1 or between Troitsky administrative area and Zone 2, but the null hypothesis is supported at all levels of importance, we will not use this difference to calculate the cost of renaming. It is worth mentioning that we are aware that this approach cannot be considered perfect. Firstly, the method used does not consider all the features that affect the cost: land prices can rise for reasons unconnected with the status, therefore, to improve the assessment it is necessary to carry out regression analysis. On the other hand, no significant changes which could significantly affect the results of the evaluation have occurred on the territory of the TiNAO in the year of its existence as a part of the capital, and the regression approach in this case would not have provided a significant improvement of quality. Moreover, the results of grouping by type of permitted use and by geographical principle are the main factors that can help determine the value of land. Secondly, despite the fact that the quality of cadastral valuation has increased in recent years, a number of doubts and questions still exist (for example, the registry database for New Moscow periodically receives land located in the Moscow region). Thirdly, the assessment is based on data from 2013, which is just one year after ceding. By 2015, the economic and political situation of the country has changed significantly in this regard, thus the value of the name should have significantly changed relative to
283
Moskovsky
Kokoshkino
Novomoskovsky administrative area Vatutinki
Shcherbinka
Troitsk Kievsky
Troitsky administative area
LMS
Kaluga Oblast
Administrative areas of New Moscow Borders of the administrative areas Ceded territory
the situation described. However, allow us to note again that finding the exact value was not our goal, we sought to identify the presence of the dynamics in the value of the current territory of New Moscow and reveal its approximate cost. Results As a result of calculations performed in accordance with the above-mentioned methodology, we received the approximate price of renaming the particular territory in 2013, which is equal to 417 billion rubles, or 12.8 billion dollars at the exchange rate of the year. The fact can be illustrated as follows: this amount could have been enough to build ten stadiums of St. Petersburg «Gazprom Arena». This result indicates a significant effect associated with renaming, as the territory took only two years to increase its own value without any significant external intervention. At the calculation stage we had to remove TPU №6 from the analysis, since the available data were not sufficient to consider normal distribution, therefore, it was impossible to make an assessment. In other cases, for the calculation of the difference between average prices of the territories, t-test showed statistical significance. In particular, for NAO the added value amounted to 157 billion rubles (13.02% growth with respect to Zone 1 of Moscow region), in Troitsky administrative areaa it was 260 billion rubles (121.86% increase over Zone 2 of Moscow region). This jump in percentage terms for Troitsky administrative area is a sign of the low base effect, as the total value of land plots for 11 TPU in Troitsky administrative area was 213 billion rubles, and 1204 billion roubles for Novomoskovsky administrative area. The relatively weak growth in the cost of Novomoskovsky administrative area can also be explained by the fact that the area is a short distance from Moscow. We should also mention the elements that form the brand value of each of the districts. The main drivers influencing the increase in value of Novomoskovsky administrative area are land plots designed to accommodate mid-and high-rise residential buildings (TPU №1) and office buildings for business and commercial purpose (TPU №7). In Troitsky administrative area they are land plots for low buildings, including individual residential development (TPU №2), for country-house construction, horticulture (TPU №4) and for agricultural use (TPU №15). These results clearly reflect the objectives and main development tendencies of each of the districts, which once again confirms the relevance of the assessment. Considering that the cost of renaming is an indicator of market reaction to the change of Moscow’s borders, it is necessary to realize that like any other market price, it is formed according to different expectations. The increase in land price in New Moscow shows that the market as a whole suggests that the quality of this site will rise, at the same time citizens hope that they can improve their living conditions, having received the same opportunities as the inhabitants of Old Moscow. Thus the logical question arises: “What will happen in reality?” The
285
Price formation of NAO
286
Cost 120 000 000 000
100 000 000 000 80 000 000 000 60 000 000 000 40 000 000 000
0 -20 000 000 000 -40 000 000 000 1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
13
15
17
TPU
Forming of the cost of TAO Cost 100 000 000 000 80 000 000 000 60 000 000 000 40 000 000 000 20 000 000 000 0 -20 000 000 000 1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
13
15
17 TPU
classical approach to financial evaluation involves consideration of three scenarios: a negative, positive and neutral ones. In other words, the fixed trend may change, especially due to the unstable economic situation in the country and lack of clear perspectives of TiNAO development. As there is no confidence in the short term perspectives, the risk of territory features’ revaluation increases, which may not have the best impact on the cost of the land later: it can lose its value. Reflecting on the negative scenario, it is possible to recall a similar story taking place during the Global crisis of 2008, related to the development of the market of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and bonds, col-
English appendix
20 000 000 000
Perspectives of development of the territory
287
Trend
Time 2000s
2012
2020s
Growth in trading multiples before territorial changes of Moscow Perspectives of market development after territorial changes of Moscow
lateralized debt obligations (CDO), that were also part of the Great Recession. In this case, of course, we are speaking of a local scale. An outcome is possible, in which investors will continue to confidently invest into New Moscow, considering the asset one of the least risky and incredibly profitable ones — in this case, whether it is really so — remains a question. The danger is that if the status gained by a territory is not justified, then gradually the price of land will begin to fall. Of course, the situation will not grow to the scale of the events of the Great Recession, and it wouldn’t be called a crisis as such — since no falls at the scale as in the financial markets can take place in terms of territorial development. But looking at the ceded territory today, we can say that such a turn in the development of new strategically important territory would be a disaster for Moscow, primarily as the collapse of the government’s expectations and hopes of the citizens, related to the desire to live in a westernized space.
* F ollowing the procedure of Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography (Rosreestr), Moscow region is divided into 4 zones, depending on the distance from Moscow. We use the Zone 1 as defined by Rosreestr, the other 3 are combined into one - this is in our case Zone 2. ** t -statistics is calculated by the formula: (mean X1 – mean X2) / sqrt (stdev1² / n1 + stdev2² / n2)
The capital of the future, in the eyes of the youth
288
“Kremnev jumped to his feet, wanting to give himself an account of what had happened, and quickly went to the window. Thick autumn clouds sailed the blue sky as ships. Next to them, a little bit lower and somewhat above ground, a few airplanes were gliding, some small, some big, of outlandish shapes, rotating metal parts sparkling in the sun. The city stretched out below ... It was Moscow, without a doubt. Kremlin towers on the left, Suharevka reddening on the right, and there, in the distance, Kadashi proudly ascended. The view that is familiar for many, many years. But everything around has changed. Masses of stones that once blanketed the horizon were gone, whole architectural groups were missing, the Nirnsee house was not in its place. Everything was drowning in gardens ... wide clumps of trees filled all the space almost until the Kremlin, leaving the lonely islands of architectural groups. Alleystreets were crossing the green, already yellowing sea. A live stream of pedestrians, cars, crews poured down them. Everything was breathing some distinct freshness, confident vivacity. It was Moscow, without a doubt, but a new, transformed and enlightened Moscow”. Chayanov А. The journey of my brother Aleksey to the land of peasant utopia. М., 1920. (Under the pseudonym Ivan Kremnev.)
Alexander Chayanov, a Soviet economist and sociologist, after whom a Moscow street on which the Russian State University for the Humanities stands is named, wrote a fantastic story about Moscow in 1920, “The journey of my brother Aleksey to the land of peasant utopia.” The story takes place is 1984. The capital, destroyed to the ground, is erected as a new, according to the rules, ideal socialist city. If you look at how the image of future Moscow is seen by the youth of the time (Chayanov was 32 years old at the time of publication) — it is curious to see that the blue sky, flying airplanes, the Kremlin, and streams of pedestrians are all present. But now the logic the context are completely different.
English appendix
Anastasiya Ilyukhina
Nobody expects anything The main difference from Chayanov’s Utopia is that Muscovites today trust their experience more than their imagination. When you offer a person to describe the dream of an ideal city, one does not expect to hear in response that, in general, it is not necessary to dream in Moscow. If the expectation bar is set too high and will not be reached, a life with the sense of an unattainable ideal will always cause frustration. The bar should be set high, yet achievable. Coming to Moscow of the future with minimal losses of that, that which is dear is an idea held explicitly or implicitly by all Muscovites. Therefore, instead of the expected, radically different futuristic images, residents simply ask for things to be done a little better here and there, such as taking down the Khrushchev-style buildings, slightly renovating the façades, and in general — “it is easier to maintain the buildings that exist, because that which will be built instead of it will just be bad”, “our habit to do something half-way while building has all chances of staying”, “I dream that particularly in this area there no longer were universal floods after rain.” Everything should be thought through One of the main narratives of Muscovites appears here — to see a clear rational plan in the surrounding urban environment, justified by a functional solution, “to read the idea of what the author is trying to establish, if it existed”, some order. All ideas on the future of the city are estimated from a position of efficiency, necessity, the balance of expended resources, and the expected results. It should be understood that the citizens’ visualisations of the future are extremely concrete and non-transcendent. They do not go beyond the framework of normality, are in accordance with the everyday environment. That is what makes them so real and distant from utopia. “Moscow of the future is a city in which life will be comfortable and interesting, a city that will be thought through.” “We do not have to change everything drastically, just solve the disorderly chaos that already exists.” “Functionality does not have to be obvious, but it should not cause problems. Everything has to be arranged so as not to create additional problems.” “Why do I need to think about the feasibility of an ideal city of the future? For the city to be comfortable, some balance between that what we need, and that what we can, is required. The main thing is for what is outside the window to be a product of a conscious decision.” Less people, more public spaces The main component of Utopia is the model of an ideal society. Muscovites do not have one. Yes, they would like for people to “speak different languages, come from different places, all dress differently”, “have people of different financial possibilities living in the same house”, “see more
289
Moscow is too large to understand Utopias are universal, the model of an ideal society and the surrounding world can be placed in any location. Muscovites think very constructively, each type of environment has its functionality, its purpose and its image. Residents clearly divide the city into districts, it seems to them so large and diverse that a single picture, a single vision of the future — is a combination of various parts. “It just feel psychologically difficult to regard this whole huge area as my own”. There is also a desire to streamline city processes, to embrace the boundless, so the city of the future is divided into a center, a business center, residential areas. The center is an archetype, an unbreakable unit. In whichever Moscow could change in the future — “historic buildings and cultural heritage should be there”. Images of central streets, of the city environment is an ideal and a reason for pride. This is what the residents mark as “Moscow-like”, “real”, getting use to which helps reproduce “life in Moscow”. In all the images of the ideal future Moscow there is a presence of the Centre of Moscow, which refers to the space within the Garden Ring. This consists of boulevards, historic buildings, the “old Moscow center maintained and strengthened the smell of coffeehouses, small cozy homey places”, and it is the concentration of power, consistency, diversity, opportunity of self-expression. Visually, everything should remain as it is, adjusted for
290
English appendix
people smiling in Moscow”, “have fewer people with disabilities, helpless people in this city”. All of this is a description of a large city, due to the size of which such a variety exists. “How many inhabitants are there in your Moscow?” — Kremnev asked his companion”. Future Moscow seems to its inhabitants as filled with an infinite number of people, which is closely related to the concepts of “metropolis”, “capital”. Large human flows scare them, cause discomfort and fear, “in my thoughts this is associated with “we are here for a short amount of time”. “I do not feel as though Moscow is my personal space. It is enormous, it is huge. There are a lot of elements alien to me in it, because my personal space is invaded by other people all the time”. The image of Moscow as a major international business center, inevitably attracting human inflows, is looming in front of the eyes, causing a defensive reaction — the ideal city of the future should have fewer people in the streets, in homes, in public transport. The idea to solve all problems in one go, for example, to destroy the old city and build a new one as in Chayanov’s utopia, does not hold up to criticism, and Muscovites steer clear of it. If the need for personal space is not met because of people-filled buses, elevators, concrete-box buildings, the idea of the necessity of public spaces is firmly rooted. In this case it is also a defensive reaction from the crowded, impersonal city, which is designed to contain the growth of individualization of many millions of metropolis’ inhabitants. “Moscow should be rid of excess, but it must have something going on.”
the use of new materials for the maintenance of buildings in a clean and tidy form, but the function may change. It is contra posed by the business center. This is an area of technology, innovation, an intelligent city of the future. Of course it has high-rise towers, glass skyscrapers, the surface of which reflects the sky, adding to street lighting. It is a predominance of glass and concrete, white and blue colours, purity, rationality and reason. It is interesting to note that the image does not cover the entire territory of Moscow, reminding one that Moscow of the future is a city of different images with a clear and orderly structure. Faith in progress is a story of the last century, and in this century it is set aside for separate areas, but not for the whole city. Although the general idea of the metropolitan narratives comes down to that commuting to work in another part of the city is bad, nobody considers having a job next to one’s home as a possibility. Residential areas are contra posed to center space and work space, i.e the business center. Ideally it is located inside the Central District, but without cars or highways, without dirt, with gardens in the courtyards and diverse architecture — a little higher than in the center, a little lower than in the business center. Houses are a separate component of Moscow of the future. Young people, whose incomes are on average less than that of older generations, wish to live in a way they would if they had more money. Mostly, 6-8 storey-high buildings occur in the image of the perfect house, with windows from floor to ceiling — which is a sign of success, wealth and wisdom at the same time, as if they let more light in and save electricity. Light facades - white is best, with a closed landscaped garden, in which it will be a pleasure to spend one’s pastime, a roof and a yard space — a place for meetings and socializing with friends and neighbours, surrounded by calmness and joy of everyday life. Speed and the absence of problems Of all the obvious attributes of the metropolis, only speed should remain and even increase. Increasing speed applies not only to the problem of transportation, but in general to solving the city’s problems. Car problems are solved. The ideal Moscow of the future, in principle, will have no traffic jams, no problems with parking, no problems with connections between different parts of the city. Little time is needed to bring children to schools and kindergartens in the morning now. Gliding airplanes appear in Chayanov’s Moscow, quiet and unnoticeable. Speed of movement by any other modes of transport other than cars, will make on-land space more open and environmentally friendly, wide roads will disappear as such. The subject of airspace development is still relevant. As well as the underground, which Muscovites consider as a large storage area, where all that is ugly and unnecessary can be moved to: shopping malls, supermarkets, transport and parking. Speed will allow to build houses and buildings in a matter of days,
291
Atypical metropolis The leitmotif of an atypical metropolis, loaded with work, but not men, seconds the dream of an ideal city that is dominated by silence. «At some point violation of private space will bring us to such a state, that even music in cafes will play very quietly”, «the ideal city — is a situation where all the sound is superfluous», «in the ideal Moscow of the future one would not hear the noise of cars and construction projects», «I imagined a picture of Moscow in 25 years, and there is no buzz”. Nobody wants to hear sounds reminding them that the surrounding environment is anthropogenic. Moscow of the future will have more greenery. This is another mandatory characteristic of the ideal city. One want to see greenery literally everywhere, on roads, in homes, on rooftops, in yards. But there is one important clarification: it must be trimmed and groomed, in perfect condition, similar to rivers bordered with stones. Tamed nature means safe nature — one more sign of the proper functioning of a city, that provides a sense of calm. Two important senses are involved: security — if we are able to curb the elements, other problems will be managed, and pride — the more natural elements in our power, the stronger we are. Ultimately, Muscovites consider cleanliness to be the main criterion of thought-through consideration of urban space — that of streets, buildings, sidewalks, rivers, visual space. «As soon as glass buildings are not in perfect condition, they immediately look like an old cardboard box», «the city is currently not adapted to operating in winter. All the innovations that are made, and the entire functioning, despite the existing climate is catered exclusively to the summer». If the streets became clean, there were lots of greenery, and it would be well-groomed, the rivers would tamed and serve for people’s relaxation — it means that the set benchmark for the ideal city, a metropolis by being and Garden City by experience, would been achieved. A clean Moscow — this is the Moscow of the future that has overcome all problems. And now take a stack of magazines with beautiful photos, cut out the blue sky, the sun, clean glass skyscrapers, white modern architecture and attractions within the Boulevard Ring, cozy courtyard-gardens, neatly shaped and trimmed trees and bushes, coated and well-developed Moscow River, kilometers of neat lawns, some fun and intelligent people in funny situations, and gather from this an image of Moscow of the future, one of Moscow that young Muscovites wish to see. Hard work will be needed to make the picture work, because everything has to be thought-through!
292
English appendix
without disturbing the general appearance of the surrounding area, while long-term construction and shielding fences, vacant lots and closed territories no longer exist. Speed will make any part of the city reachable at any time, «Moscow will be a connected, and not a fragmented city» — the problem of prestige of different areas will be solved.
Two focus groups and a series of in-depth interviews were conducted in the framework of the research. Participants were between the ages of 16 and 35 who consider themselves Muscovites. In this case, it is not important how many years people lived in Moscow precisely. The most important is a sense of local identity and projected future of one’s self in the city. These were men and women of different professions, with different levels of income who live in different parts of the capital: a linguist, political scientist, carpenter, manager of a large company, an engineer-physicist, architect, researcher, journalist, students, schoolchildren and others.
293
The history of formation of New Moscow
294
News of changing the Moscow’s borders was received by the public with mixed feelings. The decision to increase the area of the city by 148 800 hectares taken by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin and Moscow region Governor Boris Gromov, has repeatedly been subjected to sharp criticism. Little-urbanized Kaluga direction of the Moscow region, namely the territory located between Varshavskoe and Minskoe highways, and further — between the Kaluzhskoe and Kievskoe highways have been attached. Main characteristics of the new territory attached to Moscow are low population density, lack of railway communication and major cities, except Troitsk with 47 000 inhabitants (Podolsk, Chekhov, Naro-Fominsk and Aprelevka have not joined), poorly developed road network, small-size structure of land-use, intensive forest cover, absence of major rivers and water reservoirs. Pre-industrial development of the territory Historically, New Moscow landscape consisted of forests and small rivers (Pakhra, Desna, Neznayka, Sosenka etc.), the course of which, as a rule, is directed from west to east: looking at the map, one can see how rivers and forests alternate from north to south. In the middle of the XIX century, the largest settlements on the territory of today’s New Moscow were Filimonki, Red Pakhra, Voronovo. The overall level of development was not high compared to other areas, located near Moscow. One of the main reasons was the lack of the railway — it is well-known that since the beginning of the twentieth century it was the rail transport that facilitated urban development. This fact is still important today: the area is still not changing dynamically. But at the same time, under these conditions picturesque nature corners of modern New Moscow are sufficiently well preserved. New villages, rural settlements and farms appeared along the rivers in the direction from west to east. In the beginning of XX century the established settlements got interconnected with each other through a
English appendix
Rozaliia Tarnovetckaia
net of unpaved and carriage roads, firmly linking the North with the South and West with the East. The main roads at the time were Kaluzhskaya, Var shavskaya and Borovskaya roads and Bolshaya Ordynskaya road, which was subsequently destroyed. All along, Podolsk and Moscow remained the nearest urban centers. Analyzing the road network through one of the most detailed maps of the second half of the XIX century - the map of Moscow Province of 1860 (Fig.1), made by the Russian surveyor and cartographer F.F. Schubert at a scale of 1:84 000,— one can track how trade and rural roads, and even paths were arranged.
The fragment of the map of Moscow Governorate by F. F. Shubert. Scale —1:84 000 000
Upon closer examination, it becomes evident that two centuries ago the un—paved roads have not performed the role of highways, but rather served as directions and trails (Fig. 2). We have highlighted a number of features of the road network organization of the time: — the scheme of road network contains no straight lines connecting one object with another. It is evident that the roads were formed taking into account the peculiarities of the relief, rather bypassing than going straight through; — at the same time there is a clear tendency to choose the shortest route for the roads connecting villages, from time to time the density of the road network increased by crossing of different paths in sparsely populated areas; — it is difficult to distinguish the correct geometric shapes (squares, rectangles, trapezoids, circles) in the scheme of the network of unpaved roads, and roads do not intersect at 90 degree angles, which is typical of classical urban planning; — it is obvious that the formed road network has its own internal logic: considering a small scale map, one can see how alternative paths appear; — the existing network of unpaved roads was clearly not dependent on highway roads, it could operate self-sufficiently and without them as well; — one can see that at the points of the former junctions, there are no inter-
295
Moskovskiy
Kokoshkino
Kommunarka
Voskresenskoye
Shcherbinka
Troitsk
Krasnaya Pakhra
Kiyevskiy
Shishkin les
LMS
Klenovo
Rogovo
This map of road network was restored using the map of Moscow Governorate by F. F. Schubert (1860) Large settlements on the attached territory Restored road network Territory attached to Moscow before 2012 Modern settlements
sections of the type we are used today — they often overlap arbitrarily; — street-road system runs efficiently due to increasing the density of the road network. On the basis of those observations, we can state that the road network of New Moscow territory in the pre-industrial era (e.g. before 1930s), from the urban-planning angle, was largely formed spontaneously — without systematic directives of those in power, without drafting. The organization of roads was mainly influenced by two factors. Firstly, the nature of a route was predetermined by the existing landscape. Secondly, it was the location of households that mattered: over time, based on this, unpaved and major roads linking neighboring farms emerged. Of course, the more people lived in the settlement, the more ways arose around. Let us examine this in more detail. In Russia the share of agricultural rural population in the metropolitan provinces was 61.4% of the population, and in the European part of the country — even 90.1%. Space was developed extensively, locals actively used the rapidly growing road network. Postal roads and highways were considered the main roads, connecting the centers of provinces with large cities of neighboring countries. If one looks at the territory of New Moscow, one will find that Varshavskoe, Borovskoe and Kaluzhskoe highways used to perform such a function. The role of the main ones, serving local needs, was performed by unpaved roads, laid in a way allowing to make farming easier. By correlating the road network scheme with the system of late XIX century settlements, we have made a number of observations and conclusions: — on the map of 1860 dead-end settlements are practically lacking, every village has two or three external connections, large settlement — up to eight links, and a kind of “bypass roads” lay along their perimeter; — the main part of dead-end roads lead either to churches, or towards rivers, in the direction of woods (where inhabitants went for stocks), to the barnyards, towards brick and cloth production sites, monasteries and deserts; — in 1860, almost all the main unpaved roads were doubled, and this allowed to get from one village to another in different ways — more and more land was used; — almost all settlements are located on crossroads; the number and size of “dead-end villages” is low, they are primarily uninhabited but have functionally unique objects located there. Organization of “non-optimized” network of unpaved roads, where roads which double each other and have redundant crossings, seems irrational, but at first glance. Such historical layout shows high-demand of this area, and thus a necessity of its reliable access — this is exactly the way how the variability of created paths is provided. It should be mentioned that such properties of road network occur in historic cities, whose structure was developed prior to industrialization, e.g. London, the center of Moscow, Istanbul. A well-known fact that mod-
297
ern London is made up of a number of former villages is well-reflected in the nature of modern road network organization. Interestingly, such landscape features as a road, street, alley, lane, yard, jetty, close, marsh, way — still appear in the names of urban place names.
298
English appendix
Examples of the historic road network
London
Istanbul
Moscow
Organization of the historically established urban environment, is regarded as more stable compared to the “from scratch” design model, in contrast to the industrial approach (a striking negative example of which is, for example, the construction between the Third Transport Circle and the Moscow Ring Road in Moscow). By the end of the XX century, a network of carriage roads in the territory of New Moscow ceased to function, only in some places unbound pieces of old roads remain, and are now a monument to a bygone era. The reason for the transformation of the transport system of the New Moscow territory is the widespread industrialization and active motorization of the population. Today, Kaluzhskoe and Kievskoe highways are responsible for connecting areas, located from North to South in the Moscow region — they are interconnected by rare local roads, providing chord connection. Most of these roads located to the east of the Kaluzhskoe highway are dead-ended. The negative consequence of such organization of the transport framework are reruns: due to the fact that there is no possibility to pass directly, locals are often forced to use Kaluzhskoe and Kievskoe highways when going to neighboring villages. If a parameter of road-highway network density is used as a criterion when analyzing the development of the territory, then according to the following heat map, we can say that the road network in the central part of so-called New Moscow is underdeveloped, while at the same time in Troitsk and the periphery — near Podolsk, Shcherbinka, Vnukovo — road density is much higher. This fact leads to an assumption that the northern territory of New Moscow gravitates to the centers of the neighboring cities and towns — historical Moscow, Podolsk, Aprelevka, Odintsovo — and, therefore, are peripheral in relation to these settlements. The level of development of the northern suburbs of New Moscow is determined by the quality of life of the neighboring towns. Stable settlements have long appeared in the central part of the current New Moscow. The given situation once “gave birth” to Troitsk’s and its research institutions’ establishment. The southern part of New Moscow, mostly covered by forests, is moved afar from the historical Moscow, and its influence here is weakened. Most likely, this is why rural way of life prevails in the southern territory. From an economic point of view, a really valuable object here is Bekasovo-Sortirovochnoye — one of the largest railway stations in Europe. We should not exclude the assumption that it was this very station, prior in Moscow region, that caused adjusting the surrounding territory to New Moscow. We can say that at the moment the territory of New Moscow is not a single city, but an equivalent to a whole country, which consists of many different cities and lands.
299
301
Moskovskiy
Kokoshino
Kommunarka
Voskresenskoye Vatutinki Shcherbinka Troitsk
Krasnaya Pakhra
Kiyevskiy
Shishkin les
LMS
Klenovo
Rogovo
The map of the urban roads density
0
max
Korotishi Alexander Antonov
Today, the belt of settlements of Moscow region close to Moscow is characterised by the appearance of large in size urbanised areas or urban districts — fused areas of construction sites, in rare cases, alternating with storage and logistics facilities, the structure of which barely discern the territory that in the recent past were individual cities. These residential settlements are neither independent towns, nor 2nd order agglomerations, as named by construction planning documentation of the late 1990s. Perhaps 80 years ago they could have been considered as Moscow region suburbs, but even such words did not exist at the time. These unevenly developed sites with multi-storeyed buildings, divided by different administrative boundaries and thus belonging to various municipalities, intended for Moscow employees staying overnight (rather than a normal living). Examples of such large urban areas, split between several municipalities, are fused urban areas to the East and South-East of Moscow ring road: they are Reutov-Balashikha-Zheleznodorozhny and Kotelniki-Lyubertsy-Dzerzhinsky. The latter area includes former country-house settlements, that are gradually turning into towns — Kraskovo, Tomilino, Malakhovka. The recent merging of Balashikha and Zheleznodorozhny into one town may start the process of bringing the legal situation in line with the factual situation, although a direct merger of municipalities is evidently not the only solution of this collision. Some of continuous urban areas have already reached or exceeded half a million inhabitants and more. The largest of such formations, named as not the most sonorous term “Urbanizat”, is adjacent to Moscow from the North-East and includes the cities of Korolev, Mytishchi, Pushkino, Ivanteyevka, as well as built-up areas of Pirogovsky, Cherkizovo, Pravdinsky and Tarasovka settlements. Zagoryansky settlement and the city of Shchelkovo, that are adjacent from the East, can also be included into this formation. Within 10-15 years, the continuous Urbanizat SchelKorotIschi will absorb the “settlements” to the East and South-East of Shchelkovo:
301
Zvezdniy Gorodok, Medvezhyi Lakes and the Biokombinat village, and as a result will reach the population of 800 000. Today, the population of urban town-type areas in three municipal and several urban districts has reached 730 000 people— this is not a small or medium-sized city, it is among the 20 largest in Russia. Here is how the population of Urbanizat ShchelKorotIschi changed according to census data between 2002 and 2010. Dynamics of change of the population in Moscow regio Pop 1989
Pop 2002
Pop 2010
Pop 2013
Mytishchi
151 200
159 900
173 160
178 672
Pushkino
91 900
95 799
102 874
104 754
Cherkizovo
3400
3468
3559
4523
Tarasovka
2002
2492
2807
2815
Lesnye Polyany
3944
3726
4053
4100
Chelyuskinsky
2400
2356
2428
2413
Pravdinsky
10 400
10 458
10 587
10 491
Shchelkovo
106 200
112 865
110 411
112 993
7925
8093
8464
7884
Ivanteevka
51 800
51 526
58 929
63 596
Korolyov and Yubileyny
191 700
201 552
216 551
220 362
Total:
657 242
668 902
711 575
729 360
Zagoryansky
This table generally reflects the trends characterising development of Moscow region in the last 25 years. It is hard to believe today, that in the first decade of new Russian history this area was losing population due to natural population decline and was of no interest to migrants. But in the XXI century the trend switched to sustained growth, which for some cities reached 2–3% per year. In comparison to the the explosive growth of Balashikha (32% for the period 2002-2013) or Krasnogorsk (38%), Urbanizat SchelKorotIschi have just slightly increased — by only 9%, mainly due to Mytishchi, Korolev, Ivanteevka and Pushkino. On the other hand, the registered number of 730 000 of permanent residents doesn’t include the temporary population of the country-house villages, which cover 20-30% of the urban area. Besides, it is absolutely unknown to which extent that population is really temporary and whether the old country-house settlements remained suburban “dachas” or were turned into hardly legitimate high-density low-rise apartment settlements in suburban areas. While the population grew in SchelKorotIschi at an average of 1% a year, the housing construction grew at a very different pace. Statistics for the past 20 years can only be traced in urban districts — Korolev
302
and Ivanteevka. Over this period, the total housing area increased by about 60-65%. Little housing was built in the first decade, but since 2002-2004 a sharp increase started, and the potential of this growth is far from exhausted. Today, between 0.7 square meters (Pushkino) to 1.21 (Ivanteevka) square meters multi-apartment housing per person is built yearly, and this numbers exclude individual construction activities. It happens despite the fact that the cities have virtually no territorial reserves. Or it seems that they don’t. It is interesting to study the map that displays land plots data and to compare it with Earth remote sensing data from googlemaps or yandex maps. Dynamics of construction development of vacant land well illustrates the spontaneous, uncontrolled spread of all types of buildings, penetrating into any free sites.
This is how a land plot to the west of Ivanteevka looks like on a satellite image.
Sometimes areas covered with forests are said as parts of tsettlements. A land plot to the east of Pushkino.
Inside the vast territory of SchelKorotIsch of about 220 square kilometers, there are almost neither large forests left, nor continuous open landscapes of at least 200–300 hectares, preserving agricultural land of an area, significant urban forests are also missing. Natural areas are preserved in the form of narrow bands mostly along the river Klyazma, its confluents, and Akulovsky channel, where it passes over the land surface and is not removed into the pipe, as well as in the format of agricultural land plots along the river and in the towns’ outskirts. But the remaining open landscapes are already doomed. Most forest vegetation-free areas that a quick look at the satellite image may consider as fields, have long been converted into territories of settlements and further construction on this area can only be stopped by a crisis. Until now these areas are still free, but from the legal point of view they have already been turned into town. The conversion of the fields into town areas is mostly evident at the example of west of Pushkino, on the territory of Pirogov city settlement, where bright red patches of settlements have taken over absolutely all former agricultural land. Though this example has no direct relationship to our SchelKorotIsch. Of course, not everything that is marked grey on the map is a town. Ochraceous coloured-areas are those where “gardening” is allowed on the
303
304
Pushkino Ivanteevka Fryazino
Shchelkovo
English appendix
Mytishchi
Korolyov
Pushkino
The concept of natural and ecological framework on the territory of coordinated development The border of the territory of coordinated development of Moscow and Moscow region Specially protected natural reservations of natural importance with a protective zone Planned specially protected natural reservations of regional importance (before 2020-2030) Areas requiring a ban of urban development and reverse transfer to agricultural land Ecological corridors along the river valleys Specially protected forests Open landscapes requiring conservation
Mytishchi
Forest lands
Hydrography Settlements
settlement territory. It is mostly the country-house settlement Zagoryansky — where gardening areas and individual housing are approximately equal. It is evident, that private housing areas are simply hidden under the ‘gardening’ mark. But gardening does sometimes occur on agricultural lands — shown as bright yellow spots on a light yellow background on our map. There, where the owners of the land could not transfer it into the land of settlements, nothing could prevent them from covering fields with 2-3 storey “garden houses” with two-meter high fences. This kind of development of vacant lands is common for the spaces between Shchelkovo, Zagoryansky and Ivanteevka. Sooner or later all this space will be built up and SchelKorotIschi, having lost the remains of natural landscapes, will frantically start looking for places for parks and urban forest that are in the long term are essential for such a huge-potential million-inhabitant — city. But space for natural areas inside Urbanizat will already be gone.
Korol
Only the lonely forest park to the south of Ivanteevka will possibly avoid such development. Hopefully Klyazma will not be imprisoned in granite. The territory of today’s Urbanizat was originally a system of individual summer houses settelments strung, strung along Moscow’s rail network. The second level of the transportation frame is constituted by Yaroslavl highway and local road network (though at the time one could hardly call them automobile-roads) linking summer country-house settlements and villages, which were not so numerous. As a result of industrialisation and urbanisation such towns as Mytishchi and Korolev (formerly Kaliningrad) penetrated into the country-house — rural suburbia. Town street structures got developed, but the road structure between them remained rural. The construction and expansion of streets was was not actively carried out until the end of the XX century, and in the XXI century there were cases of significant intervention into the structure of the communication frame of separate towns — such as Bolshevo overpass linking the northern and southern parts of Korolev, Volkovskoye highway and the Olympic Avenue in Mytishchi. External transport structure thus remained at the level of mid XX century. The only major change was the still incomplete attempt to increase the Yaroslavl highway to the status of a transit traffic light-free line highway. As a result, today the huge Urbanizat with population 700 000 rests on a single transit line and a hierarchical system of connecting the streets to it, the configuration of which is inherited from the network of rural roads from beginning of the XX century. This “summer cottage” system was geared exclusively to Moscow, and the communication system now fully inherits this orientation.
The area in pre-industrialization period. Reprint of 1931 Map, (C) UNIINTEH.
305
Pushkino Ivanteevka
Fryazino
Shchelkovo Mytishchi
Korolyov
Types of land plots in Korotishi Administrative boarders
Industrial area
Settlements
Hydrography
Forests and vegetation in settlements Agricaltural land plots Cottage and garden plots
Nothing resembling modern transport framework is implemented in the design of Urbanizat. For example, this is the way Yandex suggests to go from the historic center of Korolev to Ivanteevka. Instead of driving 7 km directly, it suggests a 16 km bypass using the transit-oriented highway. Slightly less time would be lost if one would get from Mytishchi to Pushkino, but driving along Yaroslavl highway cannot be avoided. And to get from Zagoryansky to Cherkizovo by local streets and road network, Yandex sets aside 50 minutes for a distance of 10 km! Even though it was envisaged in the territorial planning scheme of Moscow region, the compacting of the construction in the past 20 years has left no room for building new streets or high-speed rail transport. At the same time, no local trans-municipal connections that would unite different locations of the Urbanizat, are neither suggested by the Scheme of area planning, nor by the general plans. According to the City Planning
Ivanteevka
Korolyov
Korolev-Ivanteevka route
Code, modern spatial planning does not see such complex objects of resettlement systems and does not know how to deal with them. Focusing on Moscow determines the transformation of centre system. Cities of the industrial era — Mytishchi, Korolev, Schyolkovo - were self-sufficient and formed the center somewhere near the Council House and prestigious residential areas, but not too far from industrial giants. Over time, town self-sufficiency declined, the historical center began to share functions with the transport center near the station. When close-proximity Moscow-region towns turned into residential appendices of Moscow (according to several estimates of different towns the number
307
of economically active population working in Moscow may be as high as 60%. For Korolev, Mytishchi and Shchelkovo the percentage is lower and does not exceed 40%). Thus the main centre has moved towards the station. Here, trade is concentrated — in rising number of shopping centers and spontaneous markets. It happened so, that the shape of our cities is determined not by architects or city officials, but by builders and developers. They are also the first to guess the trend of urban development, especially in the part that promises some profit. They were developers who created the shopping center format and moved city’s main activities there from the parks, central squares and various administrative buildings, with the exception of some of the unique cultural, educational and sport functions. It can be assumed that transformation of separate towns into Urbanizat will also be felt first by developers, who will start forming a new “intercity” center. All the more so, there is space for this — sites near Tarasovka, south of Yaroslavl highway and Klyazma intersection. Especially as now a new highway going west to Sheremetyevo airport is assumed to join with the Yaroslavl highway. Potential changes in the structure of the Urbanizat may occur as mentioned above. A similar ‘inter-city’ center can form somewhere equally apart from Shchelkovo, Zagoryansky and Ivanteevka, which would require extensive development of the transport communications framework.
308
A country called “Moscow” Grigory Revzin
Needed by everybody and needed by nobody The main problem of New Moscow today is that it reproduces the old Moscow — or rather, the late Soviet periphery of dormitory districts. While this type of construction is a point of consensus for various sides — development, government, citizens — it does not meet the dream of any of the above-listed. Federal government decision to cede new territories to Moscow, besides unloading Moscow, aimed to create space for a new post-industrial economy. These plans, for accidental reasons, are implemented primarily in areas, isolated from the main domains — Skolkovo (Science) and Rublevo-Arkhangelskoye (Finance). However, the same ideas characterize the development program of New Moscow in general — it is built within the paradigm of a cluster economy, which itself was born in the framework of post-industrial development. Whatever the new clusters may be — having more flashy architectural design, as in Skolkovo, more restrained as in Innopolis and Kazan, and on the island “Russkiy”— in any case, it is an environment infinitely distinct from Moscow sleeping districts like Butovo and Mitino.. If you jump ahead, one may get the impression that the grand plans of creating 12 new clusters of economic development and the actual construction of New Moscow’s neo-Soviet neighborhoods exist in parallel spaces, and in no way relate to one another. Moscow authorities favourably differ from other Russian territories, as they clearly define priorities for future development. Seven goals of the Moscow government are: a) a mobile city, b) a comfortable city, c) a healthy city, d) an educated city, e) an open city, f) a socially security city, g) a city of the new economy. The only parameter, which corresponds to the typology of Soviet districts — is the social protection of the city, with a relatively high level of large-scale social standard of living. Other than that, if you start to argue that Biryulyovo (and therefore, Novomoskovsk) is the embodiment of the principles of mobility, comfort, new education, health and the economy, we will rather discredit the government’s objec-
309
tives, than confirm the thesis of New Moscow’s development in accordance with the existing program. The strategic aim of development, as already mentioned, is the search for a typology of post-Soviet large-scale housing. Tactically, it is easier to replace it with the reproduction of Soviet-style large-scale housing. This product is bought and makes profit, but strategically, even in the medium term, the industry is doomed to conservation by making morally obsolete products. There is no doubt, that when the new sleeping districts become reality and cover dozens of square kilometers, developers will be the first to point the bone to outdated norms, system of reviews, and economic conditions upon which they were forced to operate,— but by no means blame with themselves. They worked for else what. As a result, every single participant of the “New Moscow” project will be disappointed with the results, and the project will become a demonstration of our inability to create something New, of a gap between reality and declared ideals. The scale of the project is such, that the responsibility for this frustration will be borne by the state. Not a city, but a country Expanding boundaries of Moscow caused an un-critical transfer of ways of development of the space to the new territory that emerged in the city. The object resists such methods — it is structured in a fundamentally different way. The differences lie primarily in physical space — the large number of nature areas covered by environmental legislation (especially forests and river basins), is strongly incompatible with urban development. Another issue are agricultural areas, also looking misplaced within the borders of a city. Further, differences arise in the basic structure of property. By virtue of a special privatisation practice in Moscow during the mayorship of Yuri Luzhkov, the city has virtually no private land-owners of the land — contrasting with New Moscow, having negligible areas of public land suitable for development. These being the most fundamental and unavoidable differences, many others exist — the management structure, social structure, the structure of employment, business development, etc. One should recognise that with the accession of new territories to Moscow, we have got a fundamentally different type of object which cannot develop in the same way as the pre-existing city. However, a different logic prevails so far, the main advantage of which is that, at least at first glance, it is well known and provides a clear program of action. With this logic in the 1960s-90s 80% of the existing Moscow — all Moscow periphery — was built. Since the existing object does not match the logic of its concept, there is nothing left but to apply the principle of the “clean slate.” We have to consider New Moscow as an abstract territory with nothing on it, and everything should be drawn from scratch. This means bringing in people, creating housing for them, as well as jobs, recreation areas, transport struc-
310
ture, in other words — to build a new city. But, of course, to base it on the model of the one we already have — how else? In principle, with this logic, the probability of reproducing the Moscow periphery becomes very high. As of now, plans for the development of New Moscow territory look as if all the land is owned by the state, and we can assign any territory any economic function (this applies primarily to the location of the clusters). Well, it’s possible to neglect the ownership structure and try to dictate the development plans of the territory, regardless of who owns it. In principle, in Russia the state has sufficient leverage over the owners, although the costs are very high, and the productivity of such a decision from an economic point of view looks problematic. We can neglect taking agriculture into account due to its low efficiency in the climatic conditions of New Moscow and assume that over time, all agricultural land will be converted to residential construction. Actually, this is the logic seen in the plan to create a special agricultural cluster in New Moscow. It looks like a reservation of agricultural residues in an area where it used to be everywhere, but is now cleansed — something similar to enclosures in XVI century England. However, some features of the territory are ineliminable in the framework of existing legislation. of existing legislation. Nature is protected by the Forestry and Water Code of the Russian Federation. In principle, there is little doubt that if New Moscow will develop in accordance with the path chosen today, sooner or later the issue of revising the boundaries of protected objects will be risen (which, in turn, will affect the ecology of already-old Moscow). However, the territorial development is yet not at the level, that would block moving further without solving this problem. New Moscow is becoming an important case for the development of Russia. Post-Soviet Moscow has changed the most in comparison to other Russian ones. It demonstrated to us fundamentally new approaches, spread to many areas of the city’s economy, from health care to parks, from reconstruction of the historic environment to the construction of “Moscow City”. Today, this experience defines the standards of urban development for Russian cities, with population above 1 million. Yet there is no analogy case for “country development” in Russia. Alexei Levinson formulated the following maxim: 50 kilometres journey out of Moscow is a trip of 50 years back in time. Meanwhile, according to economic geographists, not development but degradation is occurring in what is called the “heart of Russia”, thus the depth of “travel in time” increases even more. In this case New Moscow is a platform for search of forms and methods of non-urbanised territory development, which then could be used across the whole country. Two models and two failures The main issue in this approach to the problem is the choice of the country development model. Two models are available — the free market model and the Soviet planned-development model. Today’s development strategy
311
of New Moscow, adopted by the Moscow government, leans toward the second one. The idea of balancing jobs, housing and social infrastructure is guided by the ideal of an industrial socialist town, that was never fully realized, but which determined the construction of both — circumferential areas of Moscow and the satellite towns of 1960s. The main problems of such development have been identified. Large production — factory, plant, industrial complex — lies at the base of this model and the town itself was built to provide services to it. Yet we do not have any plans of industrial development in New Moscow. Moreover, for now we cannot offer any businesses, including post-industrial ones, that are capable of employing a million people. The idea of cluster development, with all its attractions, still looks quite abstract. We cannot say exactly what businesses are coming up in, say, the science or agriculture clusters, whether they are cost-effective, what investments they require and how many jobs they can provide. Without this knowledge, such a model of development is built on sand. It is a city for a million inhabitants, in the same proximity to Moscow as New Moscow, and, what is important, it offers properties at the same price level, as is planned for New Moscow. The impact of a plan was minimal — we have a relatively pure (adjusted for corruption component) result of market development, which is at the same time quite controversial. Those urban centres: industrial, science and culture, which used to be in the area, are steadily degrading (partly due to being based on defence production, not in demand in post-Soviet Russia). All areas within a distance of up to 3 km along the major routes are almost completely occupied by blocks of medium height multi-storey panel housing. All remaining internal enclaves are endless private summer houses of mainly low quality. Despite the enormous concentration of population in the area, hardly any jobs have been created, since inhabitants work in Moscow. In spite of the ongoing reconstruction of the Yaroslavl highway for the past 20 years (extension interchanges, viaducts), it is still an area of constant traffic disaster. There is nothing surprising in such development, considering the main value of the area to the market is the cost of a square meter in immediate proximity to Moscow. Thus, it does not and will not produce anything besides housing. Neither Moscow-region radishes and dill, nor high-tech space exploration infrastructure can compete with panel housing. The result is a territory, which lost its rural character but has not become a town — just square kilometres of panel housing, that cannot exist without Moscow. This is what V.L.Glazychev defined as settlements, yet of 27 storeys high. European suburbs have not appeared, only Moscow’s circumferential areas beyond the Moscow Ring Highway increased. Korotischi is an example of what we can expect in New Moscow, if free market economy is given the opportunity to develop this area in accordance to its own logic. And, most likely, we will almost inevitably get this, considering that the alternative planning model is built on the idea of clusters, which is rather
312
dubious from the viewpoint of feasibility. We need a plan of New Moscow development built on other grounds. Organic growth of the country We believe it promising to apply the idea of organic development to New Moscow. Problems do exist here — the concept of “organic growth” has not been applied, as far as we know, to country development. We can more or less imagine what organic cities are (there are many different interpretations due to the large number of concepts — from Garden City to bionic models). The concept of organic growth starting with the famous 1974 Rome Club Report (“Humanity is at a crossroad”, Mikhail Mesarovic, Eduard Pestel) is applied to global systems. A “country” falls in between the small and global. Nevertheless, global principles of organic growth may be transferred to smaller-scale systems. Let us recall the definition by Mesarovic and Pestel. “Organic growth — is a systemic and interdependent development, when no subsystem can change to the detriment of another, and progress in one of them is possible only in case of progressive processes in others. This is multifaceted development, through which each subsystem changes in different ways and the nature of change over time becomes different. To ensure consistency, the development objectives must be harmoniously coordinated. For the system to be mobile and flexible, unexpected effects that do not affect the main working functions must not interfere with the development of main components. Of particular importance are quality characteristics of change, that are irrevocably aimed at the welfare of the people.” In this sense, organic growth should not be confused with the natural growth that occurs through the actions of market mechanisms. On the contrary, serious problems of administrative influence occur, the purpose of which are “changes, that are irrevocably aimed at the welfare of the people.” On the basis of organic growth ideas, we can formulate the following tenets for the country of Moscow: — We must avoid development from scratch. Each territory development project must be based upon its specific (primarily social) properties. — We should proceed based on the principle of maximum respect for what already exists on the territory. Development projects based on the principle of destruction of that existent (settlements, buildings, natural sites, types of activity) should mostly be rejected. — We should strive for progress of all territorial units. 250,000 people living in New Moscow, their lifestyle, methods of territory development etc., — all this should not repeat the fate of the colonized American Indians. On the contrary, joining Moscow should give the territorial units a chance for progress in their particular lives. These are general principles and, when applied, misunderstandings, as well as conflicts of interest, are inevitable. Nevertheless, we offer a way of specifying these principles, leaving, of course, the possibility of alter-
313
natives. Our approach is considers a thought experiment based on the method of alternate history. Our country, including the territory concerned, lived through a very difficult 20th century. So, a) Imagine what would have happened if collectivisation wouldn’t have destroyed the development of rural settlements, industrialization would not have pulled able-bodied population out of the territory, millions of people wouldn’t have been killed in the war, more than half of the country’s budget would not have been spent on confrontation with a potential enemy during the Cold War era, etc., b) In this case, what would have happened with the territory of New Moscow? How would forests, fields, water, roads, villages, cottages, small towns look like?, c) What is necessary to bring them to this state? Thus, in this embodiment, organic growth becomes a sort of “catch-up development” — we are trying to find means to overcome the effects of negative factors that have slowed down the development of the country. Consider the main types of objects in New Moscow and identify their ways of transformation. These objects are production, roads and transport system as a whole, cities, towns and villages, forests, fields and waters. Road network Development of the transport system was one of the main tasks faced by participants in the drafting project of the Moscow agglomeration 2012. This is the most developed section of the general plan of New Moscow to date, which is represented by a developed system of roads and rail transport, taking into account the balance of private and public transport. From the point of view of traditional transport planning, this work looks somewhat premature — the development of transport is determined by parameters of settlements, which are interconnected by transport networks. Since the location of future clusters is changed with time (one may remember the migration of medical cluster from Pervomayskiy neighbourhoods to Kommunarka), transport development projects hang in mid-air. Therefore, the criticism of certain decisions seems rather senseless. However, we see it important to adjust the road network development principle in terms of the concept of organic development of the country. In the late 1980s, Alexander Skokan created Ostozhenka development plan based on the following idea. Projections of buildings and boundaries that ever existed here - everything available in the archive, were brought onto the map of the area. The result was a network of lines that Skokan called “graph paper” of the territory. The idea was not to restore all the buildings — that would be absurd, but that any new building on the site would fit into the geometry of the graph paper. This design approach strikingly justified itself brilliantly. It does not have anything to do with that Ostozhenka became a district with the most expensive real estate in Moscow. It is more to do with that today, almost 90% of construction in Ostozhenka — are buildings constructed in the last 20 years. At the same time, no one doubts that this is a his-
314
toric district of Moscow, that has retained its traditional specificities. To us, this is undoubtedly a sample method of running processes of organic growth in urban planning. We propose to apply the same methods in respect to “country development”. If all the roads that existed here in the XVII–XIX centuries are mapped onto New Moscow, we get a grid that creates a unique “dimension”, “graph paper” that characterizes this particular area. It automatically takes into account the peculiarities of the terrain, settlement specificities, economic activities, etc. There is no doubt that within the framework of favorable alternative history of this territory, the vast majority of these roads would have turned into paved roads of local importance, and the issue of connectivity of New Moscow would not exist. But, of course, it would be strange to suggest building them again today — some of them are used for cultivation, overgrown forests, many have lost their economic value due to the decrease of agricultural production. However, it would be appropriate when designing a new road network to build them along the routes of old, lost ones. In this case, we would be acting in accordance to the logic of organic territory growth. Of fundamental importance is the fact that the reconstructed road network creates for us a clear dimension of the new areas, that will grow to existing settlements, towns and villages. The road network determines the structure of the street network. Cities, towns and villages The General plan of New Moscow today defines in sufficient detail the development of major urban centers in New Moscow - Shcherbinka, Troitsk, Vnukovo, as well as settlements near the Moscow Ring Highway and the main roads, that cut through the territory. The boundaries of settlements, and density characteristics are defined. There is a common understanding of the functional zoning of the territory, based on the ideas of cluster development, which, as we pointed out, are in our view, in need of a certain correction. The character of future development is se t— district development should be changed the quarterly. In our opinion, it would make sense to add two important principles to this work. Firstly, and this is the most important position in terms of the idea of organic growth, we must strive not to lose specificity of settlements. Cities need to develop as cities, and rural communities must maintain their non-urban character. In other words, villages and settlements of private summer houses should become suburbs rather than city neighbourhoods. One must be aware that the appearance of at least one multi-storey apartment building, especially a block of such in rural settlements completely destroys the nature of the environment and dramatically reduces its value, and the value of the entire property adjacent to it. This is clear disrespect to the rights of citizens living on the territory, this type
315
of development completely contradicts the principles of organic growth and should be rejected. Coordinated projects of such kind should be withdrawn. We offer plans for the transformation of rural communities, allowing them to increase density without losing the character of the environment and taking into account the rights of property owners. The costs of such an approach are the future earnings of developers, which in this case seem to us less important than the rights of the population, already living in the area. Secondly, at present the territory of New Moscow is generally devoid of a center. This is a natural outcome of considering the territory not as a separate entity, but as a part of Moscow — in this case its center is Moscow Kremlin, and it turns into a distant periphery. However, if we consider a country, then it must have its own hierarchy of settlements - this is the natural law of territory development, well-studied in theoretical geography. Moreover, this center is now beginning to emerge in Kommunarka, despite the fact that the local government won’t seem to be based here. It seems to us that, given the prospects of development of the territory, the spontaneously formed centripetal movement is undesirable. Kommunarka is a transit point between the old and the new Moscow, and its accelerated development is connected to that. However, it is obvious that if the development of New Moscow will have any success, the southern territory of beyond Moscow ’s small ring (A107) will also begin to develop, and Kommunarka will not serve as the center of the territory. It will become a suburb of Moscow, merging with Teply Stan and Butovo (partly already happening). New Moscow needs its own center, located further to the south, in the area of Troitsk. This center deserves a special pre-study and a new project - it is important to understand that to create a hierarchy of space it should have relatively exceptional axiological characteristics that allow it to stand out in the surrounding context. Out of Russian examples,”Gorki Gorod” in the mountain cluster in Sochi could be one. Fields, forests and water It is quite clear that agricultural production in the territory of New Moscow cannot compete with the “industry of square meters”, and had the development been given to the free market, in the long term all agricultural land will be turned into a real estate development site. Resisting market processes is difficult and ultimately unproductive. However, some countries with a market economy are doing so. Let’s take the coast of Lake Geneva in the district between Nyon and Montreux as an example. The space between the towns and villages here is golden land, with villas of billionaires from all around the world, whose taxes feed all the surrounding communities. Swiss vineyards are located here. Swiss wines cannot compete with Italian or French ones neither through qualitative nor quantitative characteristics. Drinking Swiss wine is a patriotic gesture. Nevertheless, they are protected by law as a national heritage of Switzerland, and turning them into construction sites for new
316
villas is an absolute taboo, even though one such sale is able to exceed income from these vineyards for about fifty years. By this, a character of life is protected, a way of territory development, and it is important for a simple reason. One of the aspects affecting the value of all those villas are the vineyards around them. Had these villas stood in a continuous line, the value of each of them would have fallen sharply. Of course, Russia considers itself a poor country, which cannot afford to maintain this kind of values, and although income of Moscow residents are slightly higher than those of residents of Lausanne, we are nevertheless, of course, not going to take care of the field in order to maintain the value of the landscape — our traditions are not in the ground, but in the spiritual realm. But there is also another issue. In fact, it is more profitable for large development projects to take an empty field and turn it from agricultural land into a construction site, than to get engaged in reconstruction of existing settlements. Thus, instead of improving what we have, we would rather soon produce new low-cost housing estates, so that the workers’ districts of Shcherbinka will gradually deteriorate into slums, and all of the surrounding neighbourhoods will be overbuilt by blocks of panel housing. Perhaps it would make sense to put some effort to ensure some hindrance of such development, and not to allow construction on the fields until projected density is achieved in urban areas. Forests, fortunately, are not turned into residential construction sites, so they are not threatened by this fate. On the other hand, we understand that due to increasing pressure on the territory, they will certainly degrade, even if we call them “green frame” and won’t touch them. Special activities are needed to save forests. Once in the city, forests cease to be “natural”, they need “artificial” — secure — conditions. There are three types of such — reserves, parks and “starodachnye” (old country-house) areas. All three should be envolved. All continuous forest areas should be granted the status of nature reserves with the appropriate mode of protection, care and reproduction. Where forests directly border the settlements, they should receive the status of parks — otherwise they will develop in a “wild” way, with spontaneous roads and passage routes and garbage dumps. Finally, those forest areas that are adjacent to the settlements and have no protection status should develop in accordance with the traditions of old country country-house areas — having one private house on half a hectare, and granting tree protection by according urban standards. Water areas are protected by the Water Code of the Russian Federation, and in general, this regime of protection seems satisfactory. However, in cities andtowns rivers, lakes, and ponds are used in a barbaric way. The area along the banks everywhere — due to the ban on capital construction — is occupied by temporary buildings or used as landfills. In New Moscow, cities must turn their water, and public park areas should appear around the water areas.
317
318
English appendix
Production: cities and clusters Modern economic theory puts forward two opposing ideas of new settlements development, and there are few who realise how different those concepts are. One of them is the idea of cluster development, the second is the development in the paradigm of “sustainable city”. The first suggests that in one area companies and production of similar profiles are located, and this provides for a rapid development. The advantages of this type of development is the reduction of costs due to: a) integration of organizations of one profile activities, b) high level of human capital as mechanisms of professional trust play an important role, c) a high degree of place identity, serving as a factor of confidence in interaction with external markets. The second idea suggests that one area accommodates companies and production of various specializations, and this provides sustainable development. The benefits of this type of development is the cost cutting with the help of: a) integration of different-profile activities that complement each other, b) high level of human capital due to mechanism of “local” (neighbourhood) trust, c) high level of area sustainability, able to successfully resist fluctuations of the external market. Both ideas consider the issue of economic growth and, what is interesting, are based on very similar assumptions — problems of integration, of human capital are taken into account, territory is considered in the context of market development as a whole. Yet, they come to totally opposite conclusions. In principal, one can say that the difference lies in goal-setting - clusters are tools of rapid growth, and “sustainable cities” — of sustainable growth. Yet, this is more a theoretical than a practical difference. Cluster development, with the exception of Silicon Valley in USA, in reality proves to be a long-term program — Sophia-Antipolis in France, Adlershof in Germany and Tsukuba in Japan took 20 years before reaching loss-free status. Moreover, as Skolkovo and Rublevo-Archangelskoe experience in New Moscow shows, in our country (as, indeed, in all others as well) creating new clusters requires huge investments, the cost of rapid growth is its price. On the other hand, examples of implementation of “sustainable development” programs to the renovation of the cities show that their temporal dimension are the same 20 years (Ruhr development program), so the speed of cluster development is questionable. Russia falls closer to the cluster development paradigm in view of the fact that it is rethinking the idea of planned economy of the Soviet era. According to this logic “Nuclear cities” in the 1950s, and “Are-industry complexes” in the 1960s and 1970s were created. Let us pay attention to one fundamental feature of this idea. It suggests the possibility of centralised planning of the area from the outside - a cluster is created “from above”, and — if not quite from scratch — it still takes into account only the territory’s natural resources. This argument seems fundamental to us as it clarifies the difference
between the two models. Cluster development is carried out from outside of the territory. It is external. Sustainable growth is carried out from within the territory, although, of course, with the use of external resources. We can put it differently — cluster development is typical for situations of “colonisation of new territories” — like situations, and sustainable growth — for modernisation of old formations. From this perspective, it should be noted that cluster development raises more enthusiasm in American urban planning, and the idea of sustainable cities — in Europe. This allows us to concretize plans of cluster development of the territory of New Moscow. A specific feature of colonial development is that during its design the possibility of competition between the colony and the “mother country” should be excluded. Otherwise— otherwise the colonial project is doomed to failure or to rebellion against the “colonial power”. If the “mother country” produces computers, then, when creating a colony with the same specialisation, it must host this production at its own territory. This was done by Singapore, transferring computer manufacturing to Malaysia and Hong Kong in 1990s. A feature of sustainable development is that the question of the relation to the mother country does not occur at all. Let us consider the functions that the Moscow government is going to move to New Moscow. They are: — management activities, — science and research activities, — recreational functions, — medicine, — education, — logistics, — agricultural production. Only the last two functions — logistics and agricultural production — will not face serious competition from Old Moscow. All others are in direct competition, and in this sense there is a risk of repeating the fate of Zelenograd. The city was established as a Soviet equivalent of Silicon Valley, but during its half-century existence gradually has lost this specialisation. Both scientific and operational capital, as well as professors of educational institutions migrated to Old Moscow, where one can find institutions of similar profiles and, at the same time, a much more diverse urban life. For this reason, we suggest the following. All the functions having analogies in Old Moscow should not be designed in a paradigm of cluster development in New Moscow, but according to the “sustainable city” paradigm on the basis of the three existing centers — Troitsk, Shcherbinka and Kommunarka. We should not create settlements with one main function in New Moscow, a new generation of company towns. Management, science and education, healthcare, recreation and management, etc., should be interconnected in the same place, and this ensures sustainability. It is worth noting that the development of Kommunarka was originally conceived primarily for administrative functions, is currently
319
320
English appendix
standing on a multifunctional path, with growing education, science and healthcare sectors. It seems to us that the success of Kommunarka, where the average wage is currently higher than in the Old Moscow, can to a certain extent be attributed to this synergy. An exception is the logistics cluster in Bekasovo — a distinctive Moscow port that does not compete with the old town. With regards to the agricultural cluster, the very idea of it seems to us quite controversial — agriculture in New Moscow should not give ground.