TO NAT CHAMAEVA
ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PERIPHERY
mosurbanforum.ru
Research for the Moscow Urban Forum 2013 Curator Yury Grigoryan Project Office Vasily Auzan Taisia Osipova Glafira Parinos Maria Slavnova Natalia Tatunashvili Nat Chamayeva Literary Editors Alexander Ostrogorskiy Sergey Petrov Managing Editor Taisia Osipova Editor (English Section) Roger Connah Editorial Department MASTERSKAYA Principal Layout Dima Barbanel, Zhdan Philippov Fonts Zhenya Yukechev, Alexey Chekulaev Infographics Sergey Kalinin Campus Konstantin Lukyanov, Maxim Volhin Prepress Michail Shishyannikov Print manager Elena Kaporskaya Translation Olga Grinkrug Fedor Ermoshin Daria Ermoshina Ludmila Lezhneva Stanislav Lvovsky Sarah McDowel John Nicolson Anton Razmakhin Anna Shirokova-Koens Lera Shvets Larisa Skvortsova Daria Sonkina Arina Turkatenko Svetlana Tenyaeva Clive Phillips Tatiana Voronina Aleksandra Yagnyukova Proofreading Tim Misir Sophia Lampard Printing House OOO Printmarket Moscow Sushscevkiy val 49 Printed in Russian Federation All rights reserved. Reprint of materials and their use in any form, including electronic media requires obtaining a written permission from copyright owners. Š Moscow Urban Forum
7
Acknowledgements 10 Archaeology of the Periphery
12
BEYOND THE CENTRE Life on the Edge — Justin McGuirk 34 Challenging the Cult of the Centre — Brendan Cormier 47 You’re in the Magic Wand Business, Wave it! Thinking Peripherally — Roger Connah 54 World Cities Growth 62 Urban Revolution — Leonid Smirnyagin 70 CHICAGO 74 Retrofitting North American Suburbia: Tales from Chicagoland — Ellen Dunhem-Jones MEXICO CITY 82 The Peripherization of Mexico City — Christian von Wissel Neza York: From Slum to Slim. Nezahualcoyotl, Mexico City — Felix Madrazo 91 SAO-PAULO 102 Sao-Paulo: Upgrading the Favelas — Elisabete Franca Inclusive Urbanism in Sao Paolo — Silvio Torres 112 PARIS 116 Paris and it’s Peripheries — Sophie Body-Gendrot BERLIN 126 Berliphery — Theo Deutinger ISTANBUL 134 The City Still too Big to Fail? — Onur Ekmekci MUMBAI 142 Twisted Peripheries: A Blob of Spit — Matias Sendoa Echanove & Rahul Srivastava SINGAPORE 152 Less Iconic, More Just — Onur Ekmekci JAKARTA 162 Peripheral Pressures — Deden Rukmana BEIJING 172 Go Figure: When is Too Much Too Much? — Jiang Jun How the City Moved to Mr Sun — Daan Roggeveen & Michiel Hulshof 180 TOKYO 194 Diversifying the Metropolis — Yasushi Aoyama
SPACED Moscow — Another Endless City? 208 Terra Incognita 212 SPACED: Interdisciplinarity and a Humanitarian Shift
216
ARCHITECTURE The Mobilized Landscape 222 Gridlock, the Donut and Intelligent Solutions 236 Open Space 246 Construction Waves 250 Habitat 256 Brasilia. Residential Superblocks 266 Why They don’t like Walking in Tolyatti 267 Open Space Planning. Interview with Nina Kraynyaya City of Ideas: A History of Planning 276 Planning Footprints 282 Surviving Landscape 284 The Ground. Superpark 288
268
CULTURE Modernist Urban Culture Project 296 An Integrated Analysis of Social and Urban data Berlin: The Eccentric City 316 Meta-Cities in the State of Moscow 320
306
SOCIETY On the Source Data 328 Mood 329 Self-description of Residents 330 Guests — Who are They? 332 My House, My District 335 Cultural Outings 338 Moving Around the City 340 Perception of the District 343 Who Lives in the District? 347 Conclusion: The City and its Flow 350
DATA 1 From Single Factors to Trend Analysis 356 2 Cell Phones Instead of Passengers 356 3 Urban Talk Exchange 367 4 Methods of Data Processing 372
9
ECONOMICS 1 Introduction 376 2 Moscow’s Spatial Pattern 377 3 Principal Imbalances in Moscow's Spatial Economy 379 4 Theoretical Model of Cyclic Degradation of Moscow’s Periphery 387 5 New Model of Consistent Development of Moscow's Periphery 388 6 Conclusion 394
POLITICS Towards the Superpark 398 Introduction 398 The Driving Forces of Dormitory Moscow 399 Social Atlas of Moscow 400 The Productivity of Microdistrict Landscapes 408 Brief Conclusions 414 Ecology of the Periphery 418 Around Edges — Yuri Palmin 426 Preservation. Catalogue of the New Heritage 446 Moscow. Life Beyond the Centre — SPACED Research Group Bibliography 484
472
WE ARE EXTENDING DEEP GRATITUDE TO:
Moscow Urban Forum — for creating a platform for a pilot multidisciplinary urban research in Post-Soviet Russia. Olga Papadina and Varvara Melnikova —who coneived of and inspired “The Archaelogy of the Periphery”. Alexey Levinson, Alexei Muratov, Olga Vendina, Alexey Novikov. Grigoriy Revzin, Sergey Sitar, Natalia Tatunashvili — curators and co-curators of the SPACED research group — who have contributed their expertise to our investigations.
Ekaterina Sapozhnikova, Maria Nikitina, Anna Kaganovich (Moscow State University students, Urban Studies course of Olga Zinovyeva) — who contributed to interactive map of construction periods of buildings. Daria Koreneva, Tatyana Kumanina, Polina Korotkova, Regina Magomedzagirova, Maria Volik, Julia Neronska, Bogdana Gerasimeza (Moscow State University students, Urban Studies course of Olga Zinovyeva) — who contributed to documentation and establishing of a photo bank of valued buildings.
Dmitry Mayornikov, Anna Kartashova Brendan Cormier, Leonid Smirnyagin, Tatiana with Aerorecord.ru — who provided a new Nefedova, Vladimir Kaganskiy, Jun Jiang, Daan perspective for the research team with aerial Roggeveen & Michiel Hulshof, Sophie Bodyphotography. Gendrot, Matias Sendoa Echanove & Rahul Srivastava, Christian von Wissel, Orhan Esen, Victor Krylov — who printed 3D models for Elisabete Fran a, Theo Deutinger, Yasushi “Archaeology of the Periphery” exhibition. Aoyama, Deden Rukmana, Onur Ekmekci, Felix Madrazo, Ellen Dunham-Jones, Silvio Archnadzor, Sergey Klychkov, Marina Torres, Vartivar Jaklian, Hans Stimmann, Paul Ostergaard, Justin McGuirk — who extended our Khrustaleva, Konstantin Chamorovskiy and Yana Mirontseva, chief-editor of the Moscow views on world's peripheries. Heritage Magazine — who contributed to the Levada-Center (Yuri Levada Analytical list of valued buildings of the territory in focus. Center),Thomson Reuters, Project Russia Magazine, OJSC “MegaFon”, Aerorecord.ru Olga Kazakova (NIITIAG RAASN) — for (aerial photography), Graduate School of Urban interviewing Nina Krainiaya and contributing Studies and Planning at the National Research to the list of valued buildings of the territory University – Higher School of Economics in focus. (Alexander Vysokovskiy), Mathrioshka (data visualization), ScanEx RDC (satellite images) Maxim Dubinin and Artem Svetlov with the — organizations who showed their generous NextGIS — who created an interactive map of support and provided critical guidance. valued buildings of the territory in focus. Vasiliy Auzan, Anna Kochkina, Efim Freidine — who managed coordination and programming wih the Moscow Urban Forum Dima Barbanel and his MASTERSKAYA — who unveiled to us the magic of graphic design.
Irina Asvetyan, Tatyana Gladenkova, Sofia Latipova, Kristina Lebedeva (Moscow State University, Geographical Faculty) — for helping with Big Data processing. Denis Romodin — who organized an extended program for site visits and shared his enthusiasm and profound knowledge of the territory in focus.
Valentina Archangelskaya, Ludmila Marphina, Anna Naumenko, Rena Ivanyan — who gave organizational support for the General Moscow survey and focus groups to gather sociological data for the study.
Aleksandr Dolgin with HSE — for support and academic expertise.
Ekaterina Dyba, Oleg Kiselev, VasilyYablokov — who worked with geographical and city data.
Aleksandr Gavrilov — for creative support, expertise and passion for his research method.
Daria Nosova, Svetlana Dudina, Maria Serova, Elena Uglovskaya and Meganom — who Alexander Kozikhin, Ksenia Chernobrovtseva, contributed to the design and production of the Stanislav Kozin, Marina Syomushkina, Sergey “Archaeology of the Periphery” exhibition at the Chekmarev, Olga Tarasova, Alena Shlyakhovaya, Moscow Urban Forum 2013 in Manege. Alexander Plotkin, Vladislav Kapustin, Azamat Nyrov, Vasily Goncharov, Anna Goga, Nikoleta Nikolai Maksimov — our driver, who maintained Stankovic, Nataliya Komarova, Ekaterina his positive disposition in the weekend traffic. Nuzhdina, Marina Skorikova, Anna Lents — Moscow Architectural Institute students for contributing to building periodization and physical mapping of territory access.
M O S C O W U R B A N F O R U M AN ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN THE FIELD OF URBAN PLANNING, ARCHITECTURE, ECONOMICS AND STRATEGIC CITY PLANNING, ORGANIZED BY THE MOSCOW CITY GOVERNMENT SINCE 2011. FORUM HAS GAINED A REPUTATION OF A SUCCESSFUL PLATFORM FOR GENERATING EXCHANGES BETWEEN WORLD’S LEADING EXPERTS ON URBANISM, CITY MANAGEMENT AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. THE FORUM PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE CREATED IN THE MODERN MEGAPOLISES, TO CONSIDER FUTURE VISIONS AND TRAJECTORIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, BASED NOT ONLY ON EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT, ECONOMICS AND TOP-DOWN PLANNING, BUT ALSO ON THE PERSPECTIVE OF A CITY DWELLER. MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH TEAM ‘ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PERIPHERY’IS A PILOT PROJECT OF THE FORUM, WHICH OPENS A SERIES OF WORKS FOCUSED ON THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT
Archaeology of the Periphery
The rapid growth of megapolises in the 20th century has led to imbalances in the development of urban spaces. Only half a century ago, fueled by transport revolution and industrial production, the cities began to experience rapid growth and densification around the historic city cores. Today, dense urban development takes up to 95% of the total urbanized area.
different, their side-to-side comparison is not always appropriate. Nevertheless, they share common characteristics, such as the lack of resources, uniformity of fabric and monotony of the environment.
The focus on periphery is crucial for Moscow and Russian audience and stands out in the international context. Moscow is one of the best examples of conThe growth of urban agglomerations fueled by the in- centric development. During the twentieth century its flux of people, was quickly followed by the emergence border gradually moved away from its historic core, of the cult of centre; where the city center becomes adding new territories and creating an encircling hierarchy of spaces from city neighborhoods and subthe most attractive and activated. This has led to an even greater divide in the quality of life between cen- urbs to the district centres of adjacent areas. Super tral the outer districts. A big percentage of the urban- centralization of the radial structure of Moscow, the ized territory, backed by the differentiated real estate explosive growth in the twentieth century, the small prices, became and until present, remains a periphsize of the historic centre with its great significance ery. Despite the attempts to reduce the gap, the pefor the city and the country – this is what makes it riphery can never keep up with the centre in its derelevant and necessary to explore the potential of this velopment, like Achilles and the Tortoise in Zeno's development beyond the centre. It is important to paradoxes. mention, that for us development of a territory in no case equals new construction. Multiculturalism of megacities takes on different forms when applied to the formation of the urban pe- It is evident, that the "gravity" of the Moscow cenripheries. The American suburbia, favelas of Latin tre operates far outside the Moscow Ring Road and it America, Indian slums, suburbs of Western Europe is necessary to urgently adopt a common strategy for and post-socialist cities of capitalist Asia bear little the development of the entire metropolitan area. This resemblance. Since their origins are fundamentally requires bringing together a variety of specialists,
12
13
processing large amounts of data and coordinating efforts in all the levels of government. Although our research task is smaller in scale, it is no less important. We are focusing on the territory between the Third Ring Road and the Moscow Ring Road, an old Soviet Moscow with an embedded ideal model. This first zone of Moscow's periphery was completed in the 20th century and became a unique experiment to create the perfect social order, an ideal model for living. In order to uncover the imprint of the old model and reveal the latent potential of this spatial model, "archeology" becomes a useful instrument.
and debate; the space is reexamined and therefore becomes more valuable. Shaing the potential of centre and the periphery could increase the overall attractiveness and comfort level of the urban environment, in which the centripetal trends of development will be balanced by the centrifugal. To make this possible, it will be necessary to apply new approaches to management, find other methods of data analysis and develop a common strategy for the development of the urban fringe.
The significance of the focus on the centre (or a system of centres) in the discussion of the fringe has been shifting. The spatial hierarchy that values a territory upon its proximity to the core has been failing. The modern 'real' city' takes over networks, creating a As the centre sets a certain quality of life and serves new language of opportunity. In these circumstances, as a benchmark for the entire city, the high "gravitation" of the centre makes the signs of urban life invis- the historic centre of the city, still endowed with symible on the outskirts. Different optics are required in bolic and sacred meaning, starts operating in a fundamentally different way. It is natural to assume that on order to work with the non-central urban space. The the site of the former periphery there might be a new tactic of "taking out" the centre and "sharpening the urban culture appearing, including the one aimed at focus" on the peripheral territory will reveal what overcoming the cult of a centre. This is just the beginhas been obscured and help identify the processes that take place, study potential, support or control the ning of the work. The cult of the centre is replaced by the cult of the periphery. current forces at play. The term "periphery," which is based on the opposition to a semantic centre is used in a wide range of scientific fields. The myriad of approaches underlines the ambiguity of the phenomenon and at the same time provides a base for an multidisciplinary research. This research was performed by experts in sociology (S), politics (P), architecture and urban planning (A), culture (C), economics (E) and big data (D). Methodology — SPACED — allows a broader view of the actual and potential intersections, going beyond the usual practice of urban planning. ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PERIPHERY - becomes the research method of revealing the latent potential, a search for imprints, hidden planning structures, objects of value and forces at play. The main purpose of this work is to attract attention: the largest area of Moscow comes out of the shadow. Previously underestimated territories become a topic of scrutiny
Yury Grigoryan
M O S C OW
SINGAPORE
M O S C OW
LONDON
M O S C OW
SANTIAGO
M O S C OW
MEXICO
M O S C OW
LONDON
M O S C OW
C A LC U T T A
M O S C OW
BERLIN
M O S C OW
BUENOS AIRES
M O S C OW
BERLIN