RAYON TWO by Sandra Poliakov

ONE BLOCK

RAYON TWO

Merging modern and socialist visions into a sustainable neighborhood

MASTER IN ADVANCED ARCHITECTURE

2014 - 2016

THESIS ADVISOR: vicente guallart

A THESIS BY

assistant: ruxandra inacu bratosin MARIA ALEXANDRA

POLYAKOVA

Rayon

Maria alexandra polyakova

maa 02 thesis

collage

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Rayon 2 Merging modern and socialist visions for a sustainable neighbourhood a thesis by: Maria-Alexandra Polyakova thesis supervisor: Vicente Guallart assistant: Ruxandra Inacu Bratosin Institute of Advanced Architecture of Catalunya Master in Advanced Architecture 02 September 2016, Barcelona, Spain Thesis presented to obtain the qualification of Master Degree from the Institute of Advanced Architecture of Catalunya

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Acknowledgements: Special thanks to: Vicente Guallart Ruxandra Inacu Bratosin Gonzalo Decalamara Areti Markopoulou Maria Kuptsova Maite Bravo Manuel Gausa Maxim Biljarszki For the support and guidance that made this research possible

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Images: Yanina Shevchenko

ABSTRACT Rayon - in Russian - a type of division of a city, commonly translated in English as “district”. From the French “rayon” “honeycomb, department”. 60 years ago on the territory of the ex-Soviet Union block a massive change happened in building construction. This caused the creation of a certain pattern of urban fabrics that emerged and generated most of urban space throughout the USSR. This was the phenomena of the most massive urbanization that ever happened in the world. The socialist dream and aim was to build individual dwelling for the least amount of time and with the least amount of money which led to bad quality of construction and the need to set a date of expiry for the buildings. Planned for the new socialist way of life where work, culture and social activity were the ideals, this typology remains repetitive, ordered and monotone. Most of the so called microdistricts were built around factories which is no longer sustainable in terms of urban planning. Before the crash of the Soviet Union there were places where the dream of a private dwelling and the collectivist dream came true. Now the soviet neighborhoods have become an absolute in the context of modern Russia. They are bad maintained construction wise as well as in terms of social infrastructure which causes crime, visually not aesthetic views, and bad ecology. Dwellers are mostly people living in poverty and immigrants in search for a better life. Having a limit of exploitation of 50 years, most of the buildings of the soviet times are getting demolished while people are relocated to new buildings of the same type, which is nor sustainable, neither effective. Some of the buildings are not included in the “relocation campaign”, they won’t be demolished, instead people will be seeing how their living conditions will get more and more dangerous. However, the space and structures of these ex-soviet districts have the potential to become a good base for sustainable communities. Preserving the configuration of the microdistricts where social activity is supported by the master plan, and providing more individual freedom and eliminating the social and constructive problems using architectural tools, we could turn these places into attractive and sustainable ones. Using the socialist vision of community and the modern ideals of diversity in facilities and actions “Rayon Two” aims to create better ecology and safety as well as centers and businesses in each neighborhood in order to decentralize the cities and change the “sleeping districts” into communities that will host a new green regime moving towards a sustainable way of life. IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Images: Yanina Shevchenko

PROLOGUE Nowadays the problem of the post industrial remains is very crucial. The question is how can an architect adapt to the world that no longer depends on new materials and constructive discoveries, but where things we’ve already accumulated are the first that need solutions. The most affecting example of these remains we have to be concerned about is the one of prefabricated mass housing, which in the ex-Soviet Union was not the first, but the most voluminous. In the 1950’s the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev made the revolutionary decision for architecture in the USSR, he eliminated the Stalinist ampere and the architecture became modern, cheap, fully prefabricated and based on typical projects. The soviet prefabricated housing now days is treated in a negative way and questions like: What is actually important in this architecture? What is it’s value? Why we should preserve it? are certainly appearing. This architecture has become such a big part of Russia now, that makes me think that there might be an important unacknowledged content that makes it valuable. Though Khrushchev had a very modern vision on architecture and housing, it was not so progressive in the case of art. In 1962 when he visited the “New Reality” exhibition in the Manej in Moscow. Not being prepared for abstract art, Khrushchev prohibited any kind of art different then the official socialist realism and criticized the modern art using abusive language. This prohibition of course caused the appearance of unofficial arts. Soviet microdistricts started hosting a community of artist, writers and musicians that had their own unofficial publications and methods for organizing exhibitions. One of the main events connected to the unofficial nonconformist art was the “Bulldozer exhibition” in September 1974. It included 20 artists and a group of spectators, their relatives, friends, friends of the friends and some western journalists. The exhibition was forcefully broken-up by a large police force that included bulldozers, water cannons and dump trucks. The violent photographs of that event were quickly distributed worldwide and immediately harmed the reputation of the USSR and the next exhibitions were already accepted by the authorities. From the 1950’s until the 1980’s arts were very connected and inspired by architecture. Both were using ready-made objects and repetitiveness, some of the artists like Viktor Pivovarov were directly laughing at the prefabricated repetitive architecture.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Images: https://calvertjournal.com/ragain/

The repetitive landscape of the soviet microdistricts is familiar to probably every Moscow inhabitant – this kind of landscape covers a greater part of the city. Microdistricts today tend to have the reputation of bad places for life. They are also called sleeping districts – places where people only come home to sleep, places where social interaction and activity no longer exist and where individual comfort and freedom was not considered by the architecture since the beginning. Soviet microdistricts now become more and more unsustainable in terms of resources because of the quality of construction, piping system and wiring harness. The buildings built in the 1960’s were set to have a date of expiry of the constructive system of 50 years, but they still exist and take a big part of the housing in the city of Moscow. Bad maintenance of the buildings and infrastructure from the side of the authorities led and still leads to bad maintenance, disdain, lack of interest and bad behavior from the side of the dwellers. Illegal landfills and parking start appearing in the neighborhoods instead of playgrounds and public spaces. Kapotnya district is one of the microdistricts built in the 1960’s and 1970’s, in the south-east of Moscow city. It does not matter so much where exactly Kapotnya is situated because this kind of districts exist all over the country of Russia and the ex - Soviet Union space, and are consisting of almost the same type of urban fabric. Kapotnya district was chosen as the most extreme example, it is be the worst district in Moscow says the “Russian Informational Agency” [1](“RIA novosti”). From one side the district is bordered by the fourth ring road which is a highway and the border of the city, and isolated from Moscow by the Moscow river and the Moscow oil refinery. Kapotnya has worse ecology, social infrastructure and maintenance than any other district of Moscow. “Rayon Two” is an urban regeneration strategy that can be implemented to any soviet microdistrict aiming to generate a more productive ecology for the city as a whole. A proposal for developing and distributing multifunctional blocks, which contain educational, social, productive, sporting, and cultural programs, and are interconnected with recreation areas. Using different dwelling typologies - apartment buildings and country type houses – “Rayon Two” aims to increase the housing density, as well a to preserve and renovate most of the existing buildings in order to host a new green regime moving towards a sustainable way of life. Source: 1. https://ria.ru/moscow/20131105/974770708.html IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

INDEX ABSTRACT ••• 7 PROLOGUE ••• 9 INDEX ••• 13 KEYWORDS ••• 17 RELATION OF THE HOUSING SYSTEM AND POLITICS IN RUSSIA •••18 MICRORAYON (MICRODISTRICT) ••• 20 KHRUSHCHEVKI ••• 22 PRESERVATION ••• 24 CIRCULAR ECONOMY ••• 26 SUSTAINABILITY ••• 28 REFERENCE PROJECTS ••• 34 PLUS •••36 NARKOMFIN ••• 38 TREASURE HILL ••• 40 LA MEME ••• 42 MORIYAMA HOUSE ••• 44 CASE STUDY ••• 48 MOSCOW. CENTER AND PERIPHERY ••• 50 THE URBAN FABRIC ••• 52 12

RETROSPECTIVE OF THE SOVIET MICRODISTRICT ••• 56 CONSUMPTION, MENTALITY AND FACILITIES ••• 58 SOVIET TIMES, NOWADAYS, HUMAN NEEDS AND SUSTAINABILITY ••• 60 KAPOTNYA DISTRICT ••• 64 HISTORY ••• 66 GEOGRAPHY ••• 68 RAYON TWO ••• 76 THE RAYON TWO SYSTEM ••• 78 RAYON TWO: INTERVENTION IN KAPOTNYA ••• 84 PLAN FOR REGENERATION ••• 86 HOUSING ••• 88 GREEN AREAS ••• 90 PARKINGS •••92 FACILITIES ••• 94 FOOD PRODUCTION ••• 98 BUILDINGS RENOVATION •••100 CONCLUSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH ••• 102

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

KEY WORDS

HOUSING AND POLITICS IN RUSSIA MICRORAYON (MICRODISTRICT) KHRUSHCHEVKI CIRCULAR ECONOMY PRESERVATION SUSTAINABILITY

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

HOUSING AND POLITICS IN RUSSIA

In Russia, historically, architecture was always closely connected to the political regime. Before the revolution of 1917 when Russia was subordinating to the tsarist autocracy and urbanization was not well developed, most of the population of the city of Moscow were renting apartments in revenue houses. These were high-rise for those times buildings that were privately owned. The flats were tiny with a little kitchen, or no kitchen at all, it was expected that people will eat outside. After 1917 the Bolsheviks came to power and confiscated all the private buildings for governmental needs, and â&#x20AC;&#x153;simpleâ&#x20AC;? working people had to share commune barracks or apartments, where each family would occupy one bedroom and the kitchen and bathroom were common. An explosive change in the dwelling system of Russia happened under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev. His aim was to build individual dwelling for each family.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Image: I. SEMENOV. “GREAT MIGRATION PERIOD”, 1966. Satirical cartoon from “Krokodil” (“Crocodile”) magazine. Caption reads: “Over the past ten years in the Soviet Union one hundred and eight million people have moved into the new homes or improved their living conditions”. 18

MICRORAYON Microrayon (or microdistrict) is a primary generic element of the residential area construction in the Soviet Union that was invented in the 1920’s with the advent of the Soviet leadership and the fast increasing urbanization of the country. The microrayons are territories that include residential dwellings, schools, shops, green spaces and different facilities. These spaces were expected to be an opportunity to build a collective society which was needed for creating the new way of life. These residential areas consist of mass production prefabricated buildings. The buildings that were later called khrushchevki became a generic unit of a neighborhood, where a person would be socially active, but individual was not really taken into account. The “mikrorayons” don’t fit anymore the needs of society. Nowadays this architecture is blamed to be the most monotonous, depressing and repetitive environment in the history of mankind. But also this is heritage. The “microrayons” were home for underground artists, writers and musicians, who’s art was not allowed by the government and they were exhibiting in these places. Kuba Snopek in his book “Belyaevo Forever”[1] describes the “bulldozer exhibition” in Belyaevo district as an example why preservation of the microrayon as an intangible heritage – a monument to socialist times is important. It was one of the attempts to make the forbidden underground (only Soviet Union Socialist realism was supported) more public. It included 20 artists and a group of spectators – relatives and friends and friends of the friends and some western journalists. The exhibition was forcefully broken-up by a large police force that included bulldozers and water cannons and dump trucks. This event is considered as the beginning of nonconformist art which is very important for in the history of Russian modern art. The residential districts host 10 000 – 30 000 inhabitants and consist of Microrayons of 8 000 – 12 000 inhabitants generated by residential complexes and/or buildings of 1 000 – 1 500 inhabitants.

Source: 1. Snopek, Kuba. “Belyaevo Forever. The intangible heritage” 2011. Strelka Press. Moscow.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Images: â&#x20AC;¢ Stan Wayman. Life magazine. New-York 1963

KHRUSHCHEVKI On the 4th of November 1955 Nikita Khrushchev released a law on elimination of excesses in design and construction. This ideology in design and construction lasted until the crash of the Soviet Union in 1991. In 1956 the engineer Vitaliy Lagutenko supervised the building process and the launch of the two first prefabricated buildings on Grimau st. in south-western Moscow, which were so cheap and fast in construction that they became an example to follow for other architects and engineers. Engineers and architects were competing for the most economically profitable building. After some experiments the construction of one building could take only 12 days. This technology with slight modifications could be copied to any other city. On the 31 of may 1961 the first house building combine (DSK-1) was built in order to fabricate panels that were further transported to the site. For the first 9 years the cheap and narrow “khrushchevki” gave a chance to almost 54 million people to finally leave their barracks and commune flats and move to their own apartments. That was 1/4 of the Russian population[1]. Very soon the typical kitchen became not 6 m2 but 4 m2, the height of the ceiling decreased from 3 m2 to 2,50 m2, the walls were thinner and thinner. Every needed centimetre was rationed, for instance the number of clothes for a person per year led to the 50 cm of hanger plank per person. The “khrushevki” are mostly 5-storey (this was the largest amount of floors possible without an elevator according to medics), but also 9, 11,12,13-storey buildings. As a result we have loads of series (types) of mass production buildings with bad living conditions and large maintenance costs. The thriftiness became a reason for the formation of an expiration date of the buildings. Nowadays a campaign for demolishing these buildings is working. It works like that: a developer builds a new building, then people are relocated from the old ‘khrushchevka” to the new building, the “khrushevka” gets demolished. The resettlement of residents is organized and paid by the government only the packing, transportation and relocation of the people from one building costs 28 thousand Rubles (around 390 eur.). The demolition of one building costs 12 million Rubles (around 167000 eur) and takes 12 days of taking down panel after panel.[2] Sources: 1. ROSSTAT (federal service for national statistics) 2. Rutv.ru interview with Pavel Korotkov IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Source: 1. http://global-influences.com/scientific/sustainability-age/the-big-re-think-the-world-2030-tomorrows-risk-models-purposedriven-leadership/ 22

CIRCULAR ECONOMY

Humans adopted a linear approach of consuming: take – make – dispose. Circular economy is rethinking this system and proposing a new – return and renew culture. This new system is inspired by nature, where systems are arranged in a circular way: materials flow, there is no landfill – waste is food and nutrients. Principals: • Waste is food • Diversity is strength • Energy must come from renewable resourses • Systems thinking To make the recycle and repair system work, one solution is to rethink the way we view ownership. In the movie “The End of Ownership” Thomas Bau tells how he could make big companies such as Phillips rethink their operating system. He proposes a system where a consumer pays for the service and not for the product.[1] If consumers will pay for light and not for a light bulb and electricity, the companies will be responsible and interested in using less electricity and recyclable materials.

Sources: 1. “The End of Qwnership”. VPRO Blscklight.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Source: 1. Sizes for typical projects. Architect Lazar Cherikover. 2. “Plan of the day of a lonely man”. Victor Pivovarov. 24

PRESERVATION

Preservation is crucial nowadays. It was “invented” between the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution in England, in a deluge of changes it became very important to decide what should be retained. In his lecture in Harvard GSD Rem Koolhaas is sharing his thoughts on preservation. He states that the more something is destroyed or older, the more will we have to rebuild it in order to preserve and offer culture and history. Koolhaas proves that most of the times the things that are being preserved are objects and rarely are (as in the case of the Reichstag) things that don’t have architectural significance, but might have social, political or economical one. “Preservation is always about objects and never opened space or an inbuilt space” Rem Koolhaas.[1] The document that Khrushchev released in 1955 was the most influential for the architecture of the USSR. The repetitiveness and accuracy of this architecture triggered the outbreak of exceptions in the form of arts. Kuba Snopek in his book is giving an application for the inscription of Belyaevo district (which is one of the many sleeping districts in Moscow) in the World Herritage List of UNESCO as a new type of historical heritage.[2] Another type of intangible heritage is underlined by Marco Casagrande – it is the preservation of local knowledge and nature that seeps in every urban crack. He has the vision that a third generation city is the industrial city which is occupied by nature and where nature has shaped new rules for life.[3 ]

Sources: 1. Rem Koolhaas lecture in Harverd GSD. 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kvZQ5TfnfQ 2. Kuba Snopek. “Belyaevo Forever”. 2011. Moscow. Strelka Press 3. http://futureurbanism.com/interview/ruins-of-future/ (interview with Marco Casagrande by Liva Dudareva) IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Image: â&#x20AC;¢ http://www.business-class.su/news/2015/09/02/vse-na-kartoshku

SUSTAINABILITY •FOOD PRODUCTION Urban farming is proved to be a good strategy to help reducing urban poverty and food insecurity. The costs of food distribution to urban areas can not satisfy the poorer layer of population, which is spending 50 to 70 % of their income on food, according to RUAF.[1] Urban agriculture also contributes in local economic development, greening of the city and productive use of waste. Russia has a great example of urban agriculture – the dacha farms. Dacha houses are seasonal or year-round homes with plots, located in the up towns of Russian and post-soviet cities. They are used not only as recreation outside of the city (like the well known country houses or summer houses), but also for growing small food gardens, bigger commune food gardens, fishing and hunting. Dachas appeared in the XVIII century in the Russian Empire, they were gifted by the tsar as a reward for merit and service to the country and were a privilege of the aristocracy.[2] In Soviet times dachas were given to civil servants by the government and the size of the plots was 600-800 square meters, they became mostly places for food growing. In the 1930’s collective farms started appearing in the dacha colonies. Now days anyone who wants can buy a dacha and still people use it for food gardening, since they can know for sure, that no chemicals and pesticides are used during growing the fruit and vegetables that they will eat, and also as an escape from the capitalist way of life. But this only concerns the older generation. According to the anthropologist Alexandra Sheveleva’s article the dacha users can be divided to 3 generations – the ones under 30 year old that are using dachas as a place for recreation and party. The ones in the middle from 30 to 55 that spent the 1990’s working and planting in dachas and don’t practice dacha farming as a protest and as a will to be different than their parents, for them dacha is a place where they can relax and also a lifetime project, they put effort and money in order to make it a comfortable place.[3] Sources: 1. http://www.ruaf.org 2. http://www.trueactivist.com/40-of-russias-food-is-grown-from-dacha-gardens/ 3. https://esquire.ru/alekseevsky IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Friday 17:00 - 21:00 Images: â&#x20AC;˘ https://yandex.ru/company/researches/2014/ya_dacha_msk

Sunday 16:00 - 20:00

• FOOD PRODUCTION

According to a Yandex research on the road traffic, that is looking at the main highways of the Moscow region on the distance from the city border and 40 kilometers away: in the period from April 30th until August 31st on Friday night the traffic load is 2,7 times higher than in any other weekday. Whereas on fridays of the rest of the year it is only 1,2 times higher then in the other weekdays. [1] If people could have a dacha type house with the facilities of natural recreation, gardening and food growing in the city it could help to unload the traffic in order to be one step closer to a cleaner, greener and more ecological city.

The soviet example for communal food gardening is “Kartoshka”. From Russian - kartoshka - potato. It was a communist event during the times of USSR - a volunteer but mandatory involvement of citizens in agricultural works during summer time. The volunteers were mostly students, school kids and people who worked for the government. Workers and students were earning the same money as in their work or study place and could get paid extra for the work.

Sources: 1. https://yandex.ru/company/researches/2014/ya_dacha_msk

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Photos: Ilya Varlamov

• WASTEMANAGEMENT

Producing waste is a human habbit. Nevertheless, waste doesn’t have a natural space: we take out trash from our houses, offices, parkings etc. and at the same time we try to protect nature from being polluted – we collect garbage in landfills. [1] According to the information of the ministry of nature. In Russia there are 54 944 illegal landfills which is 17 388 Ha of land. 55% of them are in populated areas. According to different researches Moscow throws 2.5 to 3.5 million tons of solid waste and 6.1 million tons of industrial waste annually and not recycling it.[2] Subbotnik - from russian Subbota - Saturday. Subbotnik was another communist event - days of volunteer work that derives from the times of the October Revolution in 1917. The tradition is continued in post soviet Russia and some other former Soviet Republics. Subbotniks are mostly organized for cleaning the streets from garbage, fixing public amenities, collecting recyclable materials, and other community services.

Source: 1. Žižek, Slavoj. “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology”. 2012. 2. https://www.ridus.ru/news/152375.html IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

REFERENCES

PLUS NARKOMFIN TREASURE HILL LAVKA.LAVKA MORIYAMA HOUSE

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Image: 1. https://lacatonvassal.com

PLUS. Druot, Lacaton & Vassal. After the World War II the population of European countries increased, at the same time the war damage reduced a large amount of houses in the cities and caused a major housing crisis. In order to stabilize the dwelling system governments started launching big projects creating new towns and suburbs from scratch. this housing built in the 1960’s and 1970’s succeeded in solving the housing problem for a while, but then led to the emergence of ghettos with social, urban and disrepair issues. In France a major government campaign is created to disassemble, demolish and reconstruct the large housing of the 1960’s and 1970’s. At the same time there is a serious lack of social housing, which would require the opposite – to increase and advance the construction. In 2004 the architects Drout, Lacaton & Vassal authored a radical manifesto with the approach “Never demolish, never remove or replace, always add, transform, and reuse!”. The project suggests an addition of an external prefabricated structure in order to enlarge space. This also makes it possible to not relocate dwellers from their homes while construction goes. The external walls of the building are changed to picture windows which create a functional space between the old structure and the new, and gives the possibility to enlarge the space of apartments or create winter gardens and continuous balconies. This few steps provide natural light, warmth and typological diversity, as well as facilities and commune spaces. The concept of Lacatonon & Vassal to preserve and transform the modernist buildings is a much more efficient and economical solution than demolishing whatever is not needed and building new buildings with the same housing system. [1]

Souces: 1. https://lacatonvassal.com

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Source: â&#x20AC;˘ http://engineer-history.ru/ekskursii/dom-narkomfina/

NARKOMFIN. Moisey Ginzburg. In the late 1920’s soviet architects were working actively to create commune houses with new typologies of residential cells for promoting a more socialist everyday life for the residents of the apartment buildings. This architecture was seen as an experimental way of construction. In these houses were tested various types of residential cells (and their combination), the relation of residential and public areas in the communal building, new types of construction, materials and methodologies for organization of the construction process. Among these experimental buildings the most interesting is the house of NARKOMFIN designed by one of the masters of soviet constructivism, Moisey Ginsburg. It was called by the author a “transitional type of house” moving from the “bourgeoisie” house to the “socialist” commune house. Built in 1928-1930 the experimental residential building was a result of a serious scientific research of social and everyday processes of that time. This made possible to define the optimal area of the rooms and reasonable relations between them. The residential building of NARKOMFIN represents a six floor building with two corridors (on the second and sixth floors) and two staircases. The first floor is mostly consisting of columns which was explained with the will to not split in two the green area on which the building was placed. There are three types of flats – 32 “F” type small flats – one commune room with a kitchen stove, a bedroom, a shower room, a toilet; a few double flats “2F” – two rooms, a hallway, a bathroom, a toilet, a kitchen and a dining room; 8 flats for big families (“K” type) – a living room, two bedrooms, a hallway, a kitchen, a bathroom and a toilet; dormitory consisting of a few rooms for one or two people – a bathroom and toilet for each two rooms. On the flat roof there were organized a solarium and flower gardens. On the second floor level the residential part was connected to the communal part through a closed passage. The communal part housed a kindergarten, a kitchen and dining room where residents could eat or take away lunch. [1] Souces: 1. Han-Magomedov, Selim. “Architecture of the Soviet Avant-Garde”. Book 2. Social problems. Moscow. Stroyizdat, 2001 IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Source: â&#x20AC;˘ http://architizer.com/projects/treasure-hill/

TREASURE HILL. Marco Casagrande Treasure Hill is a settlement near Gonguang, Taipei city. It is an incredible example of a sustainable urban farming community living in harmony with nature and their experience and knowledge about the world around. In 2003 the Finnish architect Marco Casagrande was invited by the government of Taipei city to do “some sort of alternative ecological urban planning“ as he writes himself. He changes his program so that he stops the demolition of Treasure Hill and starts restoring it together with the dwellers, turning the illegal settlement into a must visit location as said in New York Times. The community is matriarchal and led by an 80 plus grandmother – Missis Chen. Dwellers of the community are old KMT veterans, illegal migrant workers and artists. Urban farmers there filter their grey water, they cultivate passive solar houses, compost the organic waste and use a minimum amount of electricity – no personal televisions, but a small commune cinema. No cars – the urban farmers are cultivating their own food. Now the legalization and restoration process lasting from 2003 untill 2010 of Treasure Hill is completed. Some of the dwellers have moved back and some left Treasure Hill. Missis Chen is still in power. Marco Casagrande changed Treasure Hill into a laboratory for environmentally sustainable living in Taipei. I belive that architecture can create an ecological harmonious natural way of life with the help of local knowledge, and this can happen not only in Taipei, but all around the world.[1]

“Treasure Hill is a no-man’s land dominated by people and the jungle. Treasure Hill is a simultaneous ruin and a construction site. This is the Third Generation City. “ Marco Casagrande. “Treasure Hill”. 2010. [2]

Source: 1. http://www.archello.com/en/project/treasure-hill 2. Marco Casagrande. Urban acupuncture. http://thirdgenerationcity.pbworks.com/f/urban%20acupuncture.pdf IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Sources: â&#x20AC;¢ http://lavkalavka.com/

LAVKA.LAVKA In 2009 Boris Akimov started a project in Russia of a farmers cooperation that would let local farmers find their customers and customers find the farmers of their needs. Lavka.Lavka is a living social project which is aimed at increasing new agricultural and gastronomical culture in Russia and around the world. It is a platform for realization of ecologically clean agricultural products, free of chemical additives, which is almost impossible to buy in the local supermarkets. The platform allows the contact of the consumer and the farmer without intermediaries. For these purposes a website and a mobile application were created where every farmer can register an account and put out his products for sale. Before the products appear on the website, members of the project carefully check the farm property for correspondence to the declared norms, for instance, what kind of seeds are used when planting, what water and fertilizers are used during the process, what are the conditions for the animals etc. The company has created their own system of ecology certificates, its fundamentals are: rejection of artificial substances as fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and growth regulators, usage of plant based infusions and agro-technical methods for illness fighting. The customer has the ability to receive full information about the products he buys, this includes open source photographs and a description of the farm. Every single product is ordered not from an abstract range, but from concrete farmers and from concrete farms. In some cases, there is a possibility of agricultural ecoâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;tourism, clients, if they wish, can visit the farm they are interested in and get to know the process of production. [1] Lavka.Lavka opened their own restaurants in Moscow and Saint Petersburg in 2011, specializing on Russian cuisine cooked from ecologically clean agricultural products. The restaurants, are firstly oriented on these kind of clients who want to eat healthy country food, but for one or another reason are not yet ready to order products on the website. In the menu there is detailed information about the ingredients that are used while preparing the dish. The menu is compiled with an obligatory accounting of the ideology of an ethical consumer. For instance, the restaurant does not order 125 steaks for their own needs, instead of that, a farmer brings a whole cow, which gets fully cut, and every piece gets prepared according to the gastronomical rules and recipes. When it gets fully eaten a farmer brings a new one.[2] Sources: 1. http://lavkalavka.com/page/chto-takoe-fermerskiy-kooperativ-lavkalavka 2. Denisenko Helena, Article for â&#x20AC;&#x153;expertâ&#x20AC;? magazine. March 19 2013. http://expert.ru/northwest/2012/11/bolshe-chem-magazin/ IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Source: â&#x20AC;¢ https://www.dwell.com/collection/building-blocks-f1d1075d

MORIYAMA HOUSE

“In this house, the client is given the freedom to decide which part of this cluster of rooms is to be used as a residence or as rental rooms. He may switch among the series of living and dining rooms or use several rooms at a time according to the season or other circumstances. The domain of the residence changes after his own life.” Nishizawa’s description in El Croquis 121-122[1]

The Moriyama House is designed by the Japanese architect, Ryue Nishizawa (from SANAA) for Yasuo Moriyama. The Moriyama house is a revolutionary new definition of private and community existence that Ryue Nishizawa came up with. The house is designed and built like a community that makes it able to connect the inside and the outside. It is a flexible format, minimalist, and steel prefabricated. The design of the house relates to the minimalist design in Japanese dwelling tradition and in this way brings the concept of “house as a city” to a new level and a new point of view. The Moriyama house is situated in the suburbs of Tokyo city. It is a multi building residence consisting of ten separate cuboids with the range from one to three floors and different floor areas. All the rooms of the house (even the bathrooms) are separate buildings that are freely distributed around an area that is comparable with the size of the other plots around. The prefabricated steel plates reinforced structure allows the reduction of the load-bearing walls thickness up to 6 cm in order increase the interior space. This also makes possible the installation of a large window opening. [2] Source: 1. El Croquis 121-122 2. http://openbuildings.com/buildings/moriyama-house-profile-39113 IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Source: â&#x20AC;˘ http://openbuildings.com/buildings/moriyama-house-profile-39113

MORIYAMA HOUSE

The Moriyama house consists of 4 room-buildings occupied by the owner. Two Bedrooms and a study, the kitchen and pantry, the living room, the bathroom and maid’s quarters. The rest of the “boxes” represent five rental apartments of varying size from 16 to 30 m2. The design of the house allows the owner to have the freedom of choosing which rooms to give for rent and which “boxes” to use for himself as a residence. It is possible to switch between the series of living and dining rooms or combining several rooms into one according to the season. Respective gardens and pathways are organized in between the buildings, they are open to the street and connect all the structures of the house. Moriyama house breaks the rules and frames of what is private and public space. There, the landscape, the city and the house correspond and become identical. [1]

Source: 1. http://www.wohnmodelle.at/index.php?id=83,74,0,0,1,0

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

CASE STUDY

MOSCOW. CENTER AND PERIPHERY THE URBAN FABRIC RETROSPECTIVE OF THE SOVIET MICODISTRICT CONSUMPTION MENTALITY AND FACILITIES SOVIET TIMES, NOWADAYS, HUMAN NEEDS AND SUSTAINABILITY

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

RELATION BETWEEN THE CENTER AND THE PERIPHERY

center

center until the 2nd ring road until the 2nd ring road

from 2nd until 3rd ring from 2nd until 3rd ring road road

periphery periphery from 3rd until 4th ring road from 3rd until 4th ring road

Grigoryan Yury and students .“the inventory”. Moscow. 2013

MOSCOW. CENTER AND PERIPHERY. In Moscow it is very crucial now days to focus architect’s and researcher’s attention on the periphery. Moscow is one of the most vivid examples of concentrated central development. During the 20th century, the border of Moscow moved far from the historical center. New territories were added and a spatial hierarchy started appearing – from neighborhoods and suburbs to district centers of adjacent areas. The radial structure of Moscow city with it’s super centralization, the small area of the historical core with it’s great significance, the explosive growth of the city in the 20th century – these are the things that make it relevant to explore the potential of the periphery of Moscow city. The territory between the Third Ring Road and MKAD (the fourth ring road) represents the part of Moscow of the soviet times, with a clearly planned ideal model. This area, completed in the 20th century is a unique experiment that was done in order to create the perfect social order and a new ideal model of life. It is important to uncover the latent potential of this spatial configuration. This area between the Third Ring Road and MKAD is the largest area of Moscow and now it is coming out of the shadow. The space that was underestimated now is becoming a topic for hot discussions and debates, it is becoming more valuable. “Shaking the potential of center 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.” [1] “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 new language of opportunity. In these circumstances, the historic center of the city, still endowed with symbolic and sacred meaning, starts operating in a fundamentally different way. It is natural to assume that on the site of the former periphery there might be a new urban culture appearing, including the one aimed at overcoming the cult of a center. This is just the beginning of the work. The cult of the center is replaced by the cult of the periphery. “[2] Source: 1. 2. Grigoryan, Yury. ”Archaeology of the Periphery”. Strelka Institute for Moscow Urban Forum. p. 24 and 217. 2015. Moscow. IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

URBAN FABRIC

MOSCOW

THE URBAN FABRIC

As said in many dictionaries, a microdistrict is a generating part of a living district in which are provided with all everyday cultural and domestic services for the residents. This includes kindergartens, public schools, buffets, grocery stores, drugstores and pharmacies. The design of a microdistricts provides for their location in a territory between roads, isolated from the transit transportation. Lines of massive traffic moving through the system of the district have to provide the same facilities in the transportation service of each microdistrict. The distance of the public transport stops from the furthest residential building in the microdistrict has to not be more than 500 meters. A microdistrict is nothing else but the well known quarter. The term quarter has existed in Russia before the October Revolution in 1917. In Soviet times the legislation of urbanism separated the terms microdistrict and quarter, but the difference between was only in the size. In some building regulation documents(СНиП II-К.2-62)0 it is said that a quarter is the smallest generic unit and a microdistrict is a bigger one. In other building regulation documents (СНиП II-60-75) it is the opposite - a quarter is bigger than a microdistrict. In some documents (В СН 41-58) a microdistrict is the result of a reconstruction of a quarter. In late soviet times and nowadays the regulations СНиП 2.07.01-89 and the following СП 42.13330.2011 these two terms are considered interchangeable: soviet – “microdistrict (quarter), contemporary – “quarter (microdistrict)” . This is a mix that has a historical foundation in the opinion of Helena Korotkova (a specialist in economics and land law, senior analyst of the Center for City Researches in Skolkovo), the term “microdistrict” has rather a stamp of the soviet times. Microdistrict is a soviet term and in this way “ideologically” it is not equal to the term quarter, in terms of law these terms are equal. [1]

Sources: 1. http://strelka.com/ru/magazine/2015/12/03/vocabulary-kvartal

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

URBAN URBAN FABRIC FABRIC RUSSIA

Moscow Moscow

THE URBAN FABRIC During soviet times the yard of a microdistrict was a mirror of the modernist idea of free landscape and free public space. The yard was a place where people interact, relax, meet and can be socially active. Dwellers of the microdistrict were taking care of their yards regularly. Today the yard land is more often private or illegally privatized and the individual interests are obviously expressed in a stronger way in the form of parking lots, illegal extensions etc. sometimes a few chairs or benches are left near the entrance door for the elderly. Space between buildings should have different functions and provide with different experiences and facilities, sometimes being private, and semi- private, but mostly free and open to public, staying true to itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s original meaning. The Microdistricts are built starting from the 1950â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s throughout the whole urban territory of Russia. This was a fast, innovative and cheap way to make the socialist dream come true. The modifications in the districts are slight and are touching only the structure of the buildings and not the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban fabric. They can be made of different constructive materials and the structure may have variations depending on the climatic conditions. The urban fabric is designed in a way that it corresponds the socialist order of life and the soviet mentality, but not climatic and individual features of the area. The Khrushchevki buildings in the north of Russia, for instance, in cities like Saint Petersburg and Magadan have no balconies or the balconies represent glass loggias. In north Siberia in permafrost conditions the five story buildings are built on piles in order to not have contact with the frozen ground. [1] In central Russia, like Moscow and Vladivostok there are organized balconies, most of the buildings have a ground basement floor. In warmer climate conditions in cities like Sochi and Novosibirsk, the buildings sometimes have naturally ventilated staircases. In Sochi and cities close to the sea side there are above ground basement floors and external stairs for the entrance.

Sources: 1. http://tayga.info/details/2016/01/22/~125266

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Sources: 1. Robert Rappaport, “Cheremushki”, 1962 2. Georgiy Daniekya, “Afonya”, 1975 3. Georgiy Danielya “Autumn Marathon”, 1979 4. Valeria Gai Germanika “Everyone Will Die And I Will Stay”, 2008 54

RETROSPECTIVE OF THE SOVIET MICODISTRICT

1950’s – The birth of Khrushchev’s dream. 1960’s – Happy residents get their own apartments. Release of the film “Cheremushki” (named by the first soviet mass prefabricated microdistrict) about Khrushchev’s building campaign: People dancing and singing happy to have their new homes. (Robert Rappaport, “Cheremushki”, 1962) 1970’s – Cinematography shows people interacting in the microdistricts happy meeting each other, working close to their homes, good weather. A cute and naive girl is the main character in the film “Afonya”. (Georgiy Daniekya, “Afonya”, 1975) 1980’s – In the movie “Autumn Marathon” the microdistrict is represented as a more depressive place. People living a boring and monotone daily round, colors are less saturated. (Georgiy Danielya “Autumn Marathon”, 1979) 1990’s and 2000’s – The soviet microdistricts are shown as dangerous, in the movie “Cureer” and especially in “Everyone will die and I will stay” where fights, violence and drugs are shown. (Karen Shakhnazarov, “Cureer”, 1989. Valeria Gai Germanika “Everyone Will Die And I Will Stay”, 2008.)

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

1950ʼS

1980ʼS 1960ʼS

Images: https://pastvu.com

1990ʼS 1970ʼS

CONSUMPTION MENTALITY AND FACILITIES After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, Moscow started to move towards the ideology of hyper-consumerism. International companies that didn’t have access to the Soviet Union consumers started rapidly spreading and advertising their product and the “western” way of life with diverse facilities and modern products. Moscow started hosting a massive section of “owners”. People raised in the Soviet mentality were not used to own, which after the crash of the USSR led not only to buying apartments and refurbishing it like Renaissance palaces, buying expensive cars with an obsessive enthusiasm, but also to transportation problems, environmental issues, housing crisis and a feeling of constant dissatisfaction, anxiety and desire to fill their lives with purpose by buying more and more objects they don’t actually need. The Soviet microdistricts can’t accommodate the new generation. In western countries the issue of hyper consumerism has been a hot topic to discuss since the 1960’s since consumption fails to improve quality of life, and happiness and health. More than that hyper consumerism is damaging the planet. Problems like overpopulation, climate change and consumption of resources need new ways and solutions for consumption if we want a sustainable future. This is why now the world’s most advanced countries move towards a smarter, collaborative or shared consumption. This kind of advanced consumption requires actions like ownership, sharing, lending, swapping etc. Russia, being far behind western countries is just starting to see the issue crucial and relevant, smart consumption and sustainability are just starting to be discussed in Moscow. Before the revolution of 1917 the Russian Empire was a great example of preserving cultural and tangible heritage, as well as sustainable use of land. With the rise of the Socialist authorities the collectivism ideals were brought up to the maximum, and now in the post soviet era Russian cities came to extreme individualism. Now Russian cities are hanging between consuming without thinking and taking responsibility for their actions. The step that separates the consumerist Russia from a rational consumption era is “passionate, empowered individuals (if not entire generations) being more willing and able to give, to share, to collaborate: to be more ‘generous’ in many ways”. [1] Sources: 1. Neville Christie, “generation G” http://trendwatching.com/trends/generationg/

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

work culture social activity

SOVIET TIMES, NOWADAYS, HUMAN NEEDS AND SUSTAINABILITY

“The obligation and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen of the USSR is honest work in his chosen field of socially useful activity, observance of labor discipline. Evasion of socially useful work is incompatible with the principles of socialist society” - From the constitution of the USSR which highlights work as one of the main parts of a socialist way of life. As Karl Marx said: “…an individual in a normal state of health, strength, vitality, artistism, skills, experiences the need for a normal portion of work and rest termination…”[1]. To develop this sense of work as a fundamental human need the education was an important part in the Soviet Union. Another important point in the Socialist system of needs was the need for social and political activity. Marx pursued the idea of disappearance of the state and the building of a society consisting of free and voluntarily united individuals. It’s purpose was the kind of reorganization of society, based on this, a man could realize the true return to himself (without the imposed ideals of church or state) i.e. the creation of society without authoritarian forces capable of limiting the development of the creative spirit of people. [2]

Sources: 1. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “The Communist Manifesto”, book II, p.13, 1948, Moscow. 2. Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Program”, 1875. IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

subsistance protection affection understanding participation liesure creation identity freedom

SOVIET TIMES, NOWADAYS, HUMAN NEEDS AND SUSTAINABILITY In 1991 The Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef published a book called “Human Scale Development” in which he proves that human needs are finite and classifiable. There are 9 fundamental human need that is constant for all cultures and through all historical periods, what changes is the ways these needs are satisfied. The nine needs are: subsistence – food, water, shelter; protection – social security, safe place to live; participation – being part of decisions that affect our lives; idleness – free time, relaxing; affection – friends and love; understanding – learning, meditating; creation – cooking, designing; identity – a sense of belonging; freedom – to choose how we live our lives. [1] Working towards reducing and eventually eliminating our contribution to conditions that systematically undermine people’s ability to meet their needs, we found a framework to organize our thinking. We can scrutinize our activities products and services through the lens of these nine human needs and associated satisfiers, pseudo-satisfiers, and destroyers. Secondly, when looking for ways to improve or replace an unsustainable practice we can step back and take a different perspective: why is the product here in the first place? Which needs does it satisfy? Can we satisfy these needs as well or even better with a different product or service? For example, a music festival gathers tens of thousands of people who join to meet their needs of participation, idleness, creation and identity. Can we invent a totally different way to meet the same needs with fewer carbon emissions due to transportation and less impact on the local ecosystems? Just asking this question opens a whole new way of thinking. Can we invent new ways to satisfy our needs for identity and freedom that do not require buying and consuming so much stuff? Can we imagine other ways to satisfy our need for idleness that do not require to fly to another side of the world and intruding on other people’s culture and land? When we find a sustainable satisfier, can we improve it to make it a synergistic satisfier and meet several needs at once with the same amount of resources? At the end of the day being sustainable is about meeting our needs within ecological constrains and the fundamental human needs can help to find ways to satisfy needs using fewer resources. Sources: 1. Manfred Max - Neef “Human Scale Developement”. 1991.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

KAPOTNYA DISTRICT

HISTORY GEOGRAPHY MAIN PROBLEMS SCHEME

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Image: 1. https://pastvu.com/p/68658

HISTORY

The territory of Kapotnya district used to be a village called Kapotnya since 1336 and than had population of around 700 people. Starting from the beginning of XV century Kapotnya village was a part of the Nikolo-Ugresh monastery. In the middle of XVII a wooden church was built in the village which later in 1789 was replaced with a stone church. In the 20’s of XVII century Kapotnya became a part of the Moscow county. In 1918 the village of Kapotnya became a settlement. In 1954 after the formation of the oil refinery near the settlement, it became an “industrial community”. In 1960 by the decree of the Supreme Council of RSFSR in connection with the construction of the ring road Kapotnya was included in the city limits. [1]

Source: 1. http://mosopen.ru/region/kapotnya/history

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

KAPOTNYA DISTRICT

Image: Google maps

GEOGRAPHY

The district of Kapotnya is situated in the south-east of Moscow city and has the area of 806ha. The population of Kapotnya is 32 287 people in 2016. The borders of the district are: the border of the city of Moscow – the outer part of the 4th Moscow ring road including all the traffic interchanges, on the west and south-west the border remains the axis of Moscow river until it’s bend, on the north of the district there is an oil refinery that is bordered by Verhnie Polya street, after which there is a forest and Lublino district. As we can see the district is very isolated from the city, it’s territory is “invisible” for the transport and the economical and political influence of the center. Kapotnya is becoming a city inside the city in a natural way. The structure of the fabric of the microdistrict is very loose, there is a lot of empty and unused space which doesn’t belong to anyone and remains in desolation. At the same time land is a valuable resource.[1]

Source: 1. http://mosopen.ru/region/kapotnya/history

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

“SADOVOD” “MEGA” MARKET & IKEA

OIL REFINARY

KA D

MOSCOW RIVER

Image: Google maps

GEOGRAPHY

The first problem that a person that travels to Kapotnya faces is the accessibility. It’s not so easy to get to Kapotnya. There is no metro here. The way to the nearest metro station takes 40 minutes by public transport. The way to the nearest train station takes also around one and a half hours. On top of this there are horrible traffic jams in the district. There are only two ways out of the district. The proximity of MKAD (now and further Moscow’s 4th ring road) also badly affects the situation. On weekdays its hard to exit Kapotnya just because its Moscow weekdays, and on the weekends traffic jams are occurring because of the proximity of MEGA (a big shopping mall) and Ikea, also a rush of trucks and busses going to the huge market “Sadovod”, which is on the north-east of the district. The ecology in Kapotnya is very bad, first of all Kapotnya district hosts the only oil refinery in Moscow, and second right behind MKAD there is a CHP. There is a constant overflow of toxic gasses according to “Mosecomonitoring”.[1] Rosprirodnadzor (the Russian nature supervision company) [2]sued and required fines from the factories for the illegal flow of gasses in November 2014. In May the arbitration court recognized the gas flows legal although they were over the allowable rate – the factory had a resolution for the flow of toxic gases to the atmosphere. Sometimes the petroleum products ignite. Besides the air pollution affects also the soil and water. Even though there are filters for the water in August 2014 petroleum flowed into Moscow river and idnited.

Source: 1. http://www.gazeta.ru/social/2015/08/12/7684345.shtml 2. http://rpn.gov.ru IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Photos: Ilya Varlamov.

Photos: Varlamov.ru

GEOGRAPHY

The most positive thing for the district is the proximity to the Moscow river. The most negative is that there is no normal access to the river at all, there are garages and illegal landfills between the river and the district. Most of the garages seem to be abandoned long time ago, a lot of them are used by the owners as storages for different junk. The automobile owners are also badly affecting the ecology by throwing their old tires right in the bushes near the river. The river side has no infrastructure at all. People organizing picnics are not used to take out their trash. The company “Golfstream security systems” made an investigation from which it is visible that the largest amount of breakins happen on the south-east of Moscow. In the ratings Kapotnya district appears as a more or less safe one, nevertheless women are writing in forums that they are afraid to go outside in the evening and usually ask taxi drivers to accompany them to their door. Some people are horrified and compare Kapotnya to Harlem, others are proud of their criminal “roots”. There is a problem with streetlights.[1] Kapotnya offers the cheapest housing in Moscow – around 121 000 rubles (around 1600 eur.) per square meter, while prices for 1 sq.m. in moscow can vary up to 23 000 euro per sqare meter. First of all the housing is bad quality: the district consists mostly of brick and panel buildings built in the 1950 – 1970’s (new buildings are not getting built). Second – because of the proximity of the factories. Because of the low prices migrant workers are more likely to move there, which in some cases causes disputes and criminal situations: in 2013 for example, activist students tried to smoke the migrants out of the dorms using a smoke bomb after which one of the migrants started to shoot people with a traumatic gun. [2]

Source: 1. http://varlamov.ru/1483062.html?page=2 2. http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1135524 IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

EXISTING PLAN functions

residential educational cultural commercial garages, wearhouses health municipal

GEOGRAPHY

When looking closer at the scheme of Kapotnya it becomes clear that the density of the district is very poor. Kapotnya district lacks green areas even though has a lot of space and potential for being very green. Housing density and facilities infrastructure are not enough dense too, the population density is 4005.83 people/km2. At the same time, it is clearly visible that a large amount of space is occupied by garages and warehouses. The cultural education structures are concentrated in only one area of the big district â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in the central north part. We could confidently say that this is the most diverse area of the district of Kapotnya. There is one church in the district preserved since the times when Kapotnya was a village. Close to it there is an Olympic reserve school, an educational center for health and a big football pitch, also some culture centers and a music school. The fact of having a riverside territory could be a huge bonus for the district, but unfortunately infrastructure along the river does not exist at all.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

THE SYSTEM OF RAYON TWO

THE SYSTEM OF RAYON TWO OPERATOR DWELLERS SUSTAINABILITY

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

OPERATOR

facilities

services

management

resources

• co-working spaces

•laundry

•tarifs for different types of families

•electricity

•kindergartens

•grociery delivery

•schools

•babyseater

•provision of resources

•market

•cleaning service

•sha •shared spaces scedule

•ca for old •care people

•orchard

•workshops and lectu lectures • libraries •exhibition space •healthcare •sports •swimming pool

•urban orchard o

•care for pets

•heating •cold water •hot water •water sewerage •gas

THE SYSTEM OF RAYON TWO

The system where an operator, or a developer company provides the resources, services and facilities is designed for a more economically efficient and sustainable neighborhood. Providing services, the proposed â&#x20AC;&#x153;operatorâ&#x20AC;? system works using the principles of circular economy. Dwellers are offered a personalized payment system depending on their needs and wishes instead of paying for each facility, service, recourse they use, they pay a certain price for the operator to serve their needs. With this approach it is easier to achieve a more conscious attitude from the side of the investor. This idea will also make possible a personal approach for each family and let the dwellers to individually choose and customise their payment system. The system of Rayon Two is a system where the operator provides and distributes resources, offers individual facilities and services for each family, maintains the buildings and infrastructure and manages the schedule and events of shared spaces moving towards a clean, ecological, comfortable and diverse place to live.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

OPERATOR SERVICES: laundry grociery delivery babyseater cleaning service care for old people

FACLITIES: co-working spaces kindergartens schools market workshops and lectures libraries exhibition space healthcare sports swimming pool

urban orchard

THE SYSTEM OF RAYON TWO

Two important parts for the sustainable way of life of the neighborhood are shared commune spaces and food production. In the system of “Rayon Two” the operator ought to manage and maintain all the commune, public and shared spaces. This prevents the neighborhood from irresponsible developers and investors that could just get the money and disappear without caring about the maintenance. Shared spaces are also useful for creating a commune feeling and making dwellers themselves handle their neighborhood with care. Food production meets peoples needs for subsistence, participation, creation, identity and freedom, being sustainable in terms of transportation and food security. As mentioned above the Russian post soviet mentality and education in terms of a sustainable way of life are a lot behind those in the “western” world. Recycling and waste management are not regular things you can see in the everyday life of a person that lives in Moscow. Children in kindergartens in schools are not taught about how waste affects the ecology of earth, the possibility of recycling waste and how it can help reducing ecological problems. Most of the adults are not concerned about the cleanness of the surrounding world, they are just not used to think about it. More than that, some of the people raised in soviet traditions think of sustainability in a negative way – as an inflicted “western” way of life.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

OPERATOR provides resources

electricity heating cold water hot water water sewerage residents

gas not sustainable

sustainable recycle waste

use wind/solar energy

methane residents pay more for utilities

operator needs to provide more resources in the neighbouthood = pays more

gas

electricity

heating hot water $ residents pay less for utilities

operator needs to provide less resources in the neighbourhood = pays less

THE SYSTEM OF RAYON TWO

In order to implement sustainability into the ex-soviet prefabricated neighborhoods, a system of support, remuneration and education was designed. In this system both the neighborhood operator and the dwellers are economically interested in behaving sustainable. In this way sustainability for the residents will first appear as a way to save money on utilities, and then presumably intrigue as a way to live more ecologically friendly. When the more conscious dwellers start saving money on their bills, or see their neighbors doing so, they will get inspired and interested to become educated in the field of sustainability. It will be in the interest of the company that will provide resources such as gas, electricity, heating, hot and cold water and water sewerage to educate people about sustainability. The less resources we use â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the less we pay, both the distributor and consumer of resources. Public lecture halls which are designed to be in each block may start to host events with sustainable agenda.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

RAYON TWO THE INTERVENTION IN KAPOTNYA

PLAN FOR REGENERATION HOUSING GREEN AREA PARKINGS FACILITIES THE BUILDING RENOVATION

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

PLAN FOR REGENERATION

The main goals and aims that â&#x20AC;&#x153;Rayon Twoâ&#x20AC;? follows in the urban scale are to create sustainable neighborhoods: sustainable in terms of ecology and resource usage, sustainable in terms of independence from the central core in the scale of Moscow city, and in terms of businesses and social activities. In order to follow this aim a mixed methodology is chosen, there are several roles in the development, such as the operator or developer/investor and the residents. There are several scales of development as well: the neighborhood (or microdistrict), the block and the building scale. The design includes demolishion of all the garages and warehouses in order to create space for increasing housing density and establishing a better social infrastructure. The garages, as it is said above, are mostly left from the 1990, they are not used by their purpose and remain as places for trash disposal, and crime. The plan is to demolish the garages and warehouses create a better alternative for parking and keeping stuff. Schools and kindergartens would be moved for a better proximity and accessibility and in order to make the educational layer of the district denser. The khrushchevka buildings would be renovated, or if there is a possibility to relocate the dwellers and build a new building - this step would be done, but only in case if it is better in terms of urban design. Several structures would be as well reconstructed, restored or regenerated - these are some cultural and commercial buildings (market places). Buildings with cultural and aesthetical meaning, like the church of Kapotnya and some brick residential buildings built before the 1950â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s would be preserved as well as municipal and health care institutions.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

HOUSING PROPOSAL

renovated housing new housing

HOUSING

Increasing the housing density is one of the main goals of “Rayon Two” especially in the district of Kapotnya. In order to achieve that, new buildings would be built in an order which creates blocks out of four or more buildings. In this way the capacity of Kapotnya district has a possibility to boost from 27200 dwellers to around 41300 dwellers. The society of Russia today in terms of diversity hasn’t been so polarized since the tsarist times. It would be a logical step to take a step out of the city where everybody lives in more or less the same apartments, and diversify the dwelling in the neighbourhoods as well. The dwelling that a neighborhood offers should support different lifestyles, types of families, or just people who share an apartment. It is decided to diversify the dwelling volumes in order to meet the needs of different types of families. In Kapotnya district now exist a small quarter of social housing built in 2009: these are duplexes built and provided by the government to families with 5 and more children. The families can stay there until their youngest child turn to adulthood (18 years old). All in all, there are six buildings for two families and one house for one family made of brick. This little quarter stands out among the prefabricated mass housing of the 1950’s – 1970’s. It was decided to use similar country type houses in the empty spaces of the not dense urban fabric all around the district. This step creates a whole new feeling in the city. Country type houses bring back the feeling of neighbourship, they let people create gardens and workshops, and give another variety for choice.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

EXISTING

PROPOSAL

GREEN AREA

evergreen cleaning the air To protect the districts which’s borders are mostly generated by large highways and roads it is decided to create a “green year-round

border”. It is crucial to do especially in districts that are close to factories, like Kapotnya. In the situation of Kapotnya a wide green park is designed. The infrastructure of the riverside is enriched by green areas, leisure points, spots for markets Thuja Juniper fir spruce and weekend festivals, places for cafés and restaurants, sports pitches and artificial ponds. It is important to sort out which kinds of plants are the best for the parameters of each certain district. In Kapotnya district “Rayon Two” offers to plant seasonal trees that have leaves with little “hairs” that will hold the dust from the highway and factories – trees like: Poplar, Elm, Chestnut etc. these are trees that can survive in the climate of Moscow, but they are seasonal. In order to have green trees in the winter as well, it is chosen to propose year round trees from the coniferous cleaning metals family, like: Thuja, Juniper, Fir and Spruce. Larch trees and moss are decided to be included in the green parts of the neighborhood because of their ability to clean the air from toxic metals. Larch

Thuja

Moss

Juniper

fir

PROPOSAL FOR PLANTING TR

seasonal leaves holding dust

Poplar

Briar bush

IAAC MAA02

Lilac

Acacia

Elm

Chestnut

Thuja

Juniper

fir

spruce

Larch

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

Moss

PARKINGS The problem of parking in Moscow city remains very crucial – the largest amount of construction happened during soviet times, when nobody supposed such a large motorization. Most of the microdistricts’s yards can host only around 30% of the automobiles that the dwellers own. The solution is obvious – to design and build underground parking and free the district’s yards from cars, while cars will only be able to go between the separate blocks. This will reduce the traffic load in the district and make room for social and sustainable movements to happen in and between the yards.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE AREA IN THE YARD Parking (used by 15% of the dwellers) 3500 sq. m.

playground 240 sq.m. pedestrian 400 sq.m.

Source: http://varlamov.ru/1537923.html

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

MAP OF FACILITIES

schools and kindergartens greenhouses and urban farms cafes and restaurants shared outdoor kitchens sports and leisure dacha houses libraries lib workshops and lectures co-workings and classrooms exhibition and cultural spaces markets

FACILITIES

Mix-use development approach in the microdistrict becomes fundamental in building with homes, offices and facility services all next to each other. The mix-use method allows to create and evenly distribute businesses and facilities around the neighborhood decentralizing the city, decreasing traffic issues, bringing more life and care to all the parts of the city. The aim of this project in terms of facilities is to create enough platforms for education and sustainable behavior, as well as foundations for a socially active neighborhood life. The project proposes to develop a distribution of multifunctional blocks which are designed to contain educational, social, productive landscape, sports and cultural programs and platforms. The blocks are interconnected with green recreation areas. In between the buildings each block will contain shared greenhouses, workshops and outdoor kitchens, which will be managed and maintained by the operator. Also small libraries, lecture spaces that can be used as kindergartens and after school program and co-working spaces. In between the blocks would be organized larger recreation areas with sports pitches and artificial ponds that can be used as ice rinks during wintertime and ponds during summertime. Each block would offer apartment buildings homes and country (dacha) type houses. This step makes the â&#x20AC;&#x153;dacha lifeâ&#x20AC;? much closer, more affordable and less environmentally harmful, also brings the feeling of a life close to nature which is crucial for encouraging a sustainable way of life.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

ONE BLOCK

leisure points elevators for parking

shared outdoor kitchen playground

renovated residential houses library & co-working

pond/ice skating point

urban farm greenhouse

dacha houses

SECTION FACILITIES commune roof garden commune space liesure, workshop, film projecting

private balcony garden

classrooms for different uses

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

URBAN FARMING PROPOSAL

urban farming points

FOOD PRODUCTION “15% of the vegetables in Russia are grown by urban dwellers in dacha farms”[1] Food production would happen all over the neighborhood. There would be organized shared greenhouses in each block, also on the roofs of the apartment buildings dwellers would be able to grow food in a commune space. Even though urban agriculture is not yet popular in Russia, there is a progressive and wide culture of food growing. The climate of Moscow city can give life to a diverse variety of fruits and vegetables in the conditions of a greenhouse.

POSSIBILITIES FOR PLANTING FRUIT

VEGETABLES

Source: 1. http://readynutrition.com/resources/how-the-dacha-farms-made-russia-self-sufficient_23072015/

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

SUSTAINABILITY IN SUMMER TIME

roof food garden water sewerage pipe biowaste pipe methane for cooking methane production grey water for irrigation and toilet flushing

THE BUILDING RENOVATION The project suggests that a comfortable platform for living a new sustainable way of life would be developed the renovated Khrushchevka buildings. There would be a roof food garden that would be functioning in summertime as well as in the winter, for creating the culture of urban planting. Water sewerage system would be filtering the grey water for reusing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; plant watering and toilet flushing. Bio waste would be collected underground for producing methane gas and using it for cooking and partly for heating in the winter time. The expansion of the building is organized using a second glass layer. This regeneration is chosen for itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ease and fast construction, also using the second layer it would be possible to do the expansion step without relocating the dwellers. The second layer would give not only a possibility for enlarging the apartment space or having an open or closed balcony, but also works as a passive heating system in the winter time. SECTION FACILITIES commune roof garden commune space liesure, workshop, film projecting

private balcony garden

classrooms for different uses

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

SUSTAINABILITY IN WINTER TIME

rain water collector and filter foldable greengouse roof food garden water sewerage pipe biowaste pipe methane for cooking heating pipes methane production methane heating grey water for irrigation and toilet flushing

100

THE BUILDING RENOVATION The structure of the roof would represent a folded, origami, lightweight structure made out of wooden stick frames covered with translucent sheets of silicone (silicone is strong enough to hold the load of snow in the winter), on the bottom the arch structure would be finished with a yurt type structure. The silicone would create a greenhouse effect during the cold time of the year. The folded structure of the greenhouse would let to collect rain and snow water in the elements, pipes would be provided to the water collecting element in order to filter the collected water and reuse it for watering the plants on the rooftop of the building.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

101

CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH.

102

SUSTAINABILITY

BLOCKS

FACILITIES

DIVERSITY

FOOD PRODUCTION

FACILITIES

USSR MASS HOUSING PREFABRICATED BUILDINGS

PRODUCTIVE LAND PRODUCTIVE SPACES

SOCIAL INVOLVEMENT

EDUCATION ECOLOGY

IAAC MAA02

URBAN AGRICULTURE

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

103

104

The aim of this project was to find out what causes the major problems of the soviet microdistricts of the 1950’s – 1970’s and discover a model that could be implemented to any site with slight modifications. The main goal of “Rayon Two” is not an architectural renovation and rearrangement of the soviet microdistricts and buildings, it is an adaptable urban recovery system. The model of “Rayon Two” was tested on a specific site in Kapotnya district. There we can find the problems that follow every other microdistrict in the former soviet block: the configuration of districts doesn’t fit the contemporary way of life, life lacking social and sustainable movements, unconsciousness about the neighbourhood space from the side of people and authorities. In the 1950’s in Russia there was a housing crisis after which a fast and cheap solution was invented. In the 2010’s the buildings that were a solution in the 1950’s get demolished and new ones (almost the same) get built – the symptoms are getting cured, but the core of the problem is not solved. The problems of sustainable resource usage and the post industrial remains are problems that the western world has already come up with a solution for, and started putting it into practice. “Rayon Two” treats the accumulated soviet neighborhoods as resources and foundations for sustainable living communities. Using a system that combines the effort of authorities and dwellers (and an optional agent between) the project presupposes the benefits of sustainability for all the sides involved. The idea that microdistricts can become a good platform for contemporary living communities was studied, tested and split to many branches that were explored. Choosing to concentrate on the neighborhood scale “Rayon Two” has incorporated a social and economical system, but some other studies were eliminated. For instance, rethinking the DIY regeneration and informal extensions in a more precise way, or looking deeper at the problem of food production and testing this side of the project. All these open a field for further steps in the research.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

105

BIBLIOGRAPHY • Banham, Reyner. “A Home is Not a House”. 1965. Art in America. NY. • Casagrande, Marco “Urban Acupuncture” http://thirdgenerationcity.pbworks.com/f/urban%20acupuncture.pdf • Grigoryan, Yury. “Archaeology of the Periphery: Moscow Beyond it’s Center”. 2013. Strelka Press. Moscow. • Groskaufmanis, Matiss and Czuba, Blazej. “Re-Briefing Khrushchev’s Dream” (https://issuu.com/strelkainstitute/docs/ matiss_groskaufmanis__blazej_czuba./1?e=3330278/3588379) • http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org • https://pastvu.com • Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. “the Communist Manifesto”. 1848 • Max Neef, Manfred A; Antonio Elizalde; Martin Hopenhayn (1991). “Human Scale Development” (pdf). The Apex Press.ISBN 0-945257-35-X. • Nikitin, Vladimir. “Future Settlement” http://futureurbanism.com/interview/future-settlement/ • Perzanowski, Aaron and Schultz, Jason M. “The End of Ownership: Personal Property in the Digital Economy”. 2016. MIT Press. ISBN 0262035014, 9780262035019

106

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Zadorin, Dimitrij and Meuser, Philipp. “Towards a Typology of Soviet Mass Housing: Prefabrication in the USSR 19551991”. 2015. Dom Publishers. ISBN 3869224584, 9783869224589. •Golubeva, Yana. “From Traditional Soviet Microdistricts towards Lively Neighborhoods”. 2012. BNTU. Belarus. (http:// www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/2211.pdf) •Koolhaas, Rem. “S,M,L,XL” (1995)[36] ISBN 978-1-885254-86-3 •Sharashkin, Leonid. “The Socioeconomic and Cultural Significance of Food Gardening in the Vladimir Region of Russia”. 2008. Dissertation presented in the University of Missouri–Columbia. (http://naturalhomes.org/img/food-gardening-russia.pdf) •Snopek, Kuba. “Belyaevo Forever. The intangible heritage” 2011. Strelka Press. Moscow. •Struynk J., Raymond. “Homeownership and Housing Finance Policy in the Former Soviet Union”. 2000 the Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/ •Žižek, Slavoj. “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology”. 2012.

IAAC MAA02

RAYON TWO - MARIA ALEXANDRA POLYAKOVA.

107

108