2010–11 EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM
Public Space Research Report
MOSCOW INTER FACES Moscow Public Space in Transition
MOSCOW INTER FACES
Moscow Public Space in Transition
Educational Program 2010/2011 PUBLIC SPACE Research Report October 2010 - June 2011
Director: Michael Schindhelm Co-Director: Yury Grigoryan Coordinator: Fedor Novikov AMO research support: Timur Shabaev Students: Daria Nuzhnaya; Andrei Goncharov; Anna Trapkova; Sergei Shoshin; Maria Gulieva; Jezi Stankevic; Anna Butenko External experts: Josep Acebillo, architect, urban planner; Eugene Asse, architect; Oleg Babakov, politician; Oleg Baevsky, urban planner; Alexander Dolgin, economist; Marat Guelman, gallerist; Vladimir Klimanov, economist; Konstantin Kovalev, Deputy director, Kuzminki park; Konstantin Kovalyov, real esate expert, Blackwood; Cynthia Nikitin, urban planner; Alexey Novikov, economist; Vadim Novikov, economist; Ovosham.net; Vladimir Paperny, culture expert; Andrei Podshibyakin, social media expert; Svetlana Serebryakova, IRP Group; Alexey Sinyakov, sociologist, MSU; Denis Sokolov, researcher, Cushman & Wakefields; Bulat Stolyarov, Institure for Regional Politics; Alexander Syromyatnikov, economist, transport expert; Roman Tkach, coordinator of public coalitions; Viktor Vakhshtayn, sociologist; Alexander Vysokovsky, urban planner; Ilia Yashin, politician.
THEME STATEMENT
As virtual realms become more popular, physical public space has experienced a simultaneous divestment of attention and potential. It is not only the conflict between virtual and real space that defines the nature of public space today, but also the shift from the public to the private sector, morphing formerly free spaces into hybrid commercial zones. When attention is paid to public space, the increase in supervision and surveillance – together with a glut of good intentions in the form of more art, more design – transforms spaces of spontaneity into pre-programmed, overdetermined areas. What comprises public space in Russia? What should be done with the excess of open space produced by monumental Soviet planning? What can be learned from the architecture of improvisation that populated these spaces after the arrival of the market economy? Is there a correlation between the heavily programmed nature of 21st century public space and the relative free-for-all of virtual social spaces? This theme examines the current state of public space in Russia in its physical and virtual manifestations. It calls for a reassessment of the open spaces of Russian cities and a committed architectural engagement in the virtual territories created by new media.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Moscow Inter Faces by Michael Schindhelm and Yury Grigoryan
4
2. STUDENT RESEARCH 2.1 The Value of Moscow Public Space by Anna Trapkova
12
2.2 Design as Enabler of Public Space by Jezi Stankevic
30
2.3 Peace and War in Public Space Insurgent Activism by Anna Butenko
40
2.4 Boundaries of Public Space in Moscow by Sergey Shoshin
50
2.5 Moscow Landscape Planning Strategy by Maria Gulieva
62
2.6 Moscow Public Art XXth Century by Daria Nuzhnaya 2.7 Crowdsourced Moscow 2012 A Public Space Game by Andrei Goncharov
3. APPENDICES 3.1 Theme Instructors 3.2 Students
72
82
93 94
1. INTRODUCTION
Moscow public spaces in transition
Moscow Inter Faces
4
1.1 MOSCOW INTER FACES by Michael Schindhelm and Yury Grigoryan
“It is difficult to design a space that will not attract people. What is remarkable is how often this has been accomplished.” (William H. Whyte) Public spaces are structures like pedestrian streets with outer protective constructions, squares, pedestrian zones, galleries, passages, atriums, etc. and also parts of constructions and buildings, designated for use by general public. (Town Planning Code of Moscow)
Moscow One mission of Strelka Institute is to interpret and change Russian urban landscape in a broadest meaning of the term. The departure of Moscow’s long-term mayor in November last year and the appointment of his successor hinted at the urgency for the definition of strategic goals for the city development and the role the public society could and should play in it. Therefore, this research started with the hypothesis that public space is the mirror of this society in its current status of a transition that Russian society as a whole has undergone during the last two decades. Moscow, a city of modernity like no other capital and therefore representing utopian urban concepts in a particular radical way, provides a wide ground for exploration of public space. Whereas Moscow’s history dates back in the XII century, 80 % of the city has been constructed over the last 90 years. Moreover, two third of the territory of Moscow today is considered public space. At the same time Russia’s capital displays consequences of transition that Russian society and institutions are undergoing. Team The team of instructors and body of students was shaped to meet the requirements of a truly interdisciplinary research. Director of the theme Michael Schindhelm — writer and cultural advisor; co-director Yury Grigoryan — architect; theme coordinator Fedor Novikov — urban planner; OMA representative Timur Shabaev — architect and graphic designer. Students: Andrei Goncharov — designer; Anna Butenko — architect; Anna Trapkova — culturologist; Daria Nuzhnaya — architect; Jezi Stankevic — architect; Maria Gulieva — architect; Sergey Shoshin — architect. Moreover, to broaden the spectrum of expertise involved, we reached out to best experts, both local and international: scientists, developers, government officials, philosophers e.t.c. Formulating research framework We entered the Fall term with a proposal to explore public space as battlefield of multiple interests, to guide the debate we introduced oppositions that we believe to be crucial for public space: the sacrifice of liberty for more individual safety; the relationship of public and private ownership and responsibility; mix of commercial and non-commercial activities; links between real and virtual ; self-identification and definitions of ours and others; difference in subjective and objective evaluation of public realm; permeability and accessibility of public spaces. This approach was formulated as Moscow Inter Faces — it stresses the importance of “public” in “public space” and shapes the research to look at public space as the interface between users, stakeholders, hardware and software. Our goal was to build and capitalize on the synergy of different professional backgrounds in a multilateral research effort.
5
PUBLIC SPACE
CAPEX (capital commitment) OPEX (operating cost)
taxes
expences cost
value
taste climate
consumed services / goods
public
ownership
practice
informal law formal
non-rivalrous
Public Space as Public Good
scale design as a control tool comfort of PS preservation ideology authenticity
advertising
private
customers/ quality of life stakeholders
investment potential business attraction
identity
hardware
business individuals
free-riders payers
Commercial / Non-commercial
capitalization
government public association community
access price
income
sufficiency demand
supply
non-excludable
alternatives attractiveness distance access price
Accessibility / Permeability Security/safety
law access price
nostalgia
[Social: norms & practices]
[Social: public opinion]
[Urban: connectivity]
[Design: ideology & taste]
matrial status
What kind of similarities are in the behavior / differences of users / groups of users?
rest
What do
How do betw repre een senta them tives ? Who of differ m PS ent users grou defin ps defin e as e ours relation and ships othe rs ?
in PS? What
functions
of PS are
in-demand : political,
users
PS? actio ns in ctive colle
PS?
in PS?
ors in
at are of beh the avio
Wh do and ? ble nsi ce of norms po res abidan and o is law Wh trol the con
identify themselves
democracy
formal
with PS?
e
ibl
up
at me
and are con associastories nec ted tions , emotio with ns PS?
users
place narratives PS is a
abilities
bottom-up initiatives
accessibility usability
equability
NARRATIVE memories
IDEOLOGY
people
Object of planning guerilla
zoning mapping
partitioningMedia
Collaboration
politics
socialism
laws
Information
Network
mechanism of regulations
consumerism communism
sustainability
transport
emotions
mo ries and
stories
space
y?
Are there Wha t the any botto lead need ers m-up for theirof thes initiatives realiz e initiatives? ation ?
ns po res ? be PS to of nt are wa ftw so or
samples
portraits space syntax
connectivity
IDENTIFICATION WITH PLACE
on f ilit ati el osib ific ev nt e l on de th resp lf-i n se ct o es fle Do re
Wh
f rules o e? are the What of public spac ion utilizat
form r in al rule PS? s
norms
and behavi
and norms could be observed
contro l social ented
in PS?
Do they
What informal rules of behavior
ities repres author kind of)
Do no active rm s an use d be rs co ha ntr vio ol r in socia PS l ?
what
RULES
informal
presence of authorities
Do
NEEDS
rs nee
LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY
/ groare ers rdw y us ha an for
influence factors
Do any users
use
can we racesl PS? tideologica What ve in ce obser influen they Howal behavior? soci
How (and
controllers/ active users
Do no active rm s an use d be rs co ha ntr vio ol r in socia PS l ?
any there Are
e in public e behav do peopl
space?
do
e tak l to ntro ? dy co to rea and , v-t PS le op lity al go pe ibi loc the e ns er Ar po ov nt wa res ey th or
How
PS
s of tion t func Wha
etc.?
behaviors/ co-presence public space as a battlefield
MASS/INDIVIDUAL
space
SOCIAL GROUPS
social, commerci al, private,
distribution
society
d?
users do
function
communities
Self-defined
ic aph ogr rs? em use io-d soc of PS at is re ctu stru
PRACTICIES
control
clubs
Soc-Dem defined Wh
commercial mobilization
income
sex
age
INTERACTION OF DIFFERENT SOCIAL GROUPS
awaiting
communication
nationality
neutral
Wh at Do PS group as us us s Wh a ers ers and of at simpart of PS can comm thi be of s gro ilar gro defin de un itie up s up /coe the fined ities of / co do mm ms ? mm the un elv un memb ity? es ity ha ers ve ?
support
conflict
The Tool of Collective Dream Society Identity
Selecting sites Transportation hub Ko Nor ms th om Ch Ch ols Par Pla Kho erta ere kay tiza ner nsk nay dyn nov mu a ka o shki sq. aya a Micro-rayon
Economics Free access Limited access
+
+
+
+
+
+ -
+ -
+
Square
Park Street Centr Mi Ka al nimer Str Hous sq ger eet Vor e of uar sky in obj Bo Artist e sid sub evy Lef Oldulv sin eurb VV gor ort Arbard Park su stre ??? Ts y ovo at ring of bur et arts b? + + + + - ?? + + +
Squar e near Cathe Pus Ma Re dral of Kie hki nez Ga d Christ vsk nsk han gar sq the aya aya ya in uar Savior sq. sq. sq. sq. e +-
+
+
+
-
-
-
Commercial space Pre obra Doro zhe gomi nsk lovsk aya y mar mark ket et
Evr ope jsky sho ppi ng mall -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+-
+
-
-
+
+
-
+
-
+
+
+
Commercial
-
?
+
+
+
-
-
-
+-
+
+
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
+
+
+
Non-commercial
+
?
-
-
-
+
+
+
+-
+
-
+
-
+
+
-
+
+
-
+
-
-
-
Cheap real estate
-
+
+
?
+
-
?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
?
-
-
+
?
-
?
+
+
+
-
+
?
+
+
Expensive real estate
-
Embankment Kot Yau Ber elnic za sen hes (Ac. evs Ser kay Tup kay ebr a ole a yan emb va em y . em b. bor ("Pi b.) er")
+
Industrial zones Dani lovs kay a man Red ufac Oct tura ober +
+
+
+
+ -
-
-
-
+
?
+
+
+
+ +
+
-
?
+
+
+
Private property
-
-
?
?
?
-
?
-
?
+
-
-
-
-
?
-
-
-
-
-
+
?
?
+
+
State property
+
+
?
?
?
+
?
+
?
+
+
+
+ +
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Text
+
+
Socialcs +
-
-
+
+
Unused
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
+
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
liberty
+
+
+
?
?
+
+
+
-
+
-
-
+
-
??
+
+
-
+
+
+
?
-
-
Controlled
Used
-
-
+
?
?
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
?
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
Mass utilization
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
?
Individual utilization
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
?
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
+
+
Official PS
-
?
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
Insurgent PS
+
?
+
-
-
+
?
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
?
+
-
-
Memories / traditions
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
+
?
+
-
?
-
-
+
+
-
? ?
-
+
+
?
+
+
+
-
+
+
-
?
+
+ +
+
?
-
-
-
?
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
??
+
-
-
-
-
?
?
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
-
+
+
?
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
-
+
+
+
+ +
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
+ +
+
Significant for district
+ +
+
-
Terrain vague
+
+
-
+
Significant for city
+
-
-
?
+
-
+ + +
+
+ +
+
+
Design Fenced
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
+
-
-
-
Non-fenced
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+ +
-
+
-
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
-
-
+
+
-
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
-
+
+
-
Old
-
New
+
Ergonomic
?
?
-
?
?
+
-
-
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
?
?
+
?
?
?
?
-
+
?
-
-
-
+
+
-
+
-
-
+
+
+
-
?
+
+
+
-
+
+ +
+
+
+
+
-
-
Day
+
+
+
+
+
-
?
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
Night
+
?
+
?
+
?
-
+
+
-
?
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
? ?
+
-
+
+
?
+ + +
+
+
+
-
+ +
-
-
+
-
?
-
-
-
-
-
+
?
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
-
-
-
?
-
-
?
?
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
?
+
+
+
+
Religious message
-
?
?
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
?
-
-
-
For human
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+?
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
?
-
+
+
-
+
+
-
+
Walkable
-
+
+
-
?
-
-
+-
+
+
+
+
+ +
Non-walkable
+
-
-
+
?
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Permeable
+
?
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
For car
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
+
+
-
+
+
?
?
+
?
+ +
?
?
+
? ?
+
+
?
-
+
?
-
?
?
+
-
+
?
+
+
-
+
Political message
?
+
+ ?
+
+
Non-political message
-
+
-
+
?
-
+
+
+
+
?
?
?
+
-
-
-
-
?
-
+
+ +
?
+
-
+
?
?
?
-
+
?
-
-
Seasonal
+
?
+
Permanent
Non-ergonomic
-
-
?
+ + +
+
+
+-
Urban planning
?
+
-
-
?
?
?
?
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
?
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
-
+
+
-
?
+
?
-
-
-
??
+
-
-
+
-
-
+ ?
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
Peripheral
+
+
-
+
+
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
+
+
+ +
Urbanized Ruralized
-
+
+
?
?
Non-permeable Intensive utilization Non-intensive utilization Central
+
+
+ -
? ?
+
+
+ +
+
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
+
-
+
?
+
?
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
?
-
?
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
+
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
+
+-
-
+
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
+
-
+
-
Regulated
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Non-regulated
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
Memory
6
INTRODUCTION
Research structure Anna Butenko Social
Anna Trapkova Economy
Sergey Shoshin Regulations
Maria Gulieva Masterplans
Jezi Stankevic Design
Daria Nuzhnaya Ideology
Andrei Goncharov Virtual
Value of Moscow PS
Process of PS shaping in Moscow
PS in Moscow urban planning history
Design as a control of PS
Ideology and Public art
Virtual PS vs. real
monuments
sites services
focus PS as a battlefield
research subject up
public good direct
top
indirect bottom
down
Moscow insurgent activism
surveys planning project servitudes
overlaps
Moscow urban history — 1923 — 1935 — 1971 — 1998 — 2005
PS hardware list of elements significance of PS
Virtual/Real Activism Stakeholders
Demand for PS
Ideology of masterplan of 1935 Masterplan of 2010
Ideological control
goal Tool for collaboration
Evaluation of PS dead capital
Manual for design of PS
Urban planning strategy for PS
Catalogue of elements
Public art strategy
Tool for collective dream
Group dynamic and individual concentrations We structured the methodology of the research so that the student began their work in group to collectively understand the matter better and develop a multilateral approach before we switched to an individual mode of research. Structuring individual hypotheses was an iterative process: first we identified 5 dimensions of the research: economy, design, socio, urban planning and virtual. Each student worked on at least two groups with the goal to gain a more comprehensive knowledge of the subject. From these broad dimensions students derived their individual research hypotheses: 1. Anna Trapkova — studying the value of Moscow parks, their direct, indirect economic benefits, and intangible value; 2. Jezi Stankevic — creating a universal design evaluator for public spaces; 3. Anna Butenko — exploring the social dynamics and activism in public space; 4. Sergey Shoshin — defining borders of public spaces; 5. Maria Gulieva — examining the history of urban planning visions, specifically in regards to green zones and embankment; 6. Daria Nuzhnaya — looking at the evolution of public art in Moscow in XX century; 7. Andrei Goncharov — envisioning cities that were planned in a game. This methodology helped us establish projects that matched individual students’ interests and yet bridged diverse hypothesis under a single research umbrella, thus providing a comprehensive picture of relevant public space issues in Moscow.
7
PUBLIC SPACE
Sampling According to Shakespeare it is the people who are the city. If you are curious to get to know Muscovites people you have to watch them in Moscow’s public space. Therefore, since the early days of the research we’ve stressed the crucial importance for place-based approach: student selected specific case-studies, conducted numerous site-visits and interviewed both users and officials in charge of different public space. The sampling of sites has evolved over the course of the research: in the beginning students selected up to 20 sites derived from multiple criteria and covering most local typologies to study generic conditions for Moscow. At the individual stage of the research student selected specific case-studies for their research, such as: Manezhnaya square for design, embankment for history of planning visions, microrayon for research on borders, or Patriarshie ponds for indirect economic benefits of public spaces. Findings Nearly six months of research have proved the hypothesis that Moscow’s public space is the mirror of a society in transition from a planned to a market economy. Whereas pressing urgencies for changes in urban planning (Sergey Shoshin, Maria Gulieva) were detected, latencies have been discovered hinting at the enormous potential of a more efficient interpretation and exploitation of the value provided by public space (Anna Trapkova). Moscow’s public realm is considered a battlefield. Social activism using it as a platform for protest has been developed in various expressions displaying “hot issues” of a society who tries to liberate itself from authoritarian traditions of public communication (Anna Butenko). As this communication still suffers from paternalism the internet and connected social networks offer new forms of public exchange which allows to investigate the role of virtual public spaces in shaping activities in real public spaces (Andrei Goncharov). Moscow, an unquestionable historical and contemporary center of the arts, displays inconsistent and disputing attitudes towards public art. Whereas the tradition of public memory created by memorials turned during the last two decades in a pompous celebration of monstrous public art statements, activists use art as a tool of political subversion. Furthermore, the historical experience of iconoclasm seems to not be entirely overcome and shows the contested relevance of public art in the interpretation of Russia’s identity (Daria Nuzhnaya). Moscow’s public design undergoes similar significant changes. Avant-garde approaches in the early years of Soviet Russia have been replaced by more rationalist design in the later communist era. Although contemporary and globally accepted models have reached also Russia’s capital Moscow remains a permanent exhibition of futurist and socialist design efforts. How to customize public space being designed under Soviet conditions to present needs? What are criteria for a efficient design in Moscow’s public space? Jezi Stankevic tries to give answers to those questions. Broadcasting The team collaborated with magazine Bolshoi Gorod (http://bg.ru) — a popular local media published bi-weekly and distributed city-wide for free, accompanied by an online platform — to develop a special issue dedicated specifically to public space on the basis of student research. Additional broadcasting ideas included: production of a video-documentary; creation of a webplatform as a result of virtual research; artistic intervention in Moscow public space.
2. STUDENT RESEARCH
12
2.1 THE VALUE OF MOSCOW PUBLIC SPACE by Anna Trapkova
Introduction In the past decades, public spaces worldwide have become a significant factor in the formation of the urban environment. In Russia, however, even today, the term public space does not enjoy widespread use. This may in large part be a holdover from the Soviet era. The absence of the institution of private property in the country did not promote the division of the urban landscape into private and public. It also explains why today, areas of common use in Russia account for over 50 percent of total urban land area, whereas in European cities public space occupies around 25 percent. The views on organization, management, maintenance, and utilization of common areas in Russia differs from the way public spaces are defined and viewed in Western scholarship. The initial hypothesis of my research was the assumption that all public spaces in Moscow were potential, yet hidden, capital.
The goal of the study has been to determine the value of public spaces from the point of view of key groups of stakeholders: public officials, entrepreneurs, and citizens.
To meet this goal, I had to establish the groundwork of the research and create a frame of reference in the following ways:
-- devising a method for the evaluation of public spaces; -- studying international practices of economics of public spaces; -- analyzing current mechanisms of funding and management of public spaces in Moscow; -- evaluating and studying the mechanisms of, and potential for, the interaction between stakeholders and public spaces using real-life examples.
Although this study is limited to the territory of Moscow, from the many types of public spaces in the city I chose only a few cases for detailed analysis. I focused on the green areas: squares, boulevards, and parks. In my view, they present the most striking contradictions between the city and nature, between public policy and economy, between the private and the collective. In urban economics, public spaces are defined as areas for the public good, the main properties of which are non-excludability and non-rivalry. For this reason, the study does not limit itself to the economic aspects of public spaces as a whole, but covers the indirect economic and sociocultural effects of public spaces. This has allowed me to evaluate public spaces in three dimensions: from the point of view of direct revenue, indirect revenue, and their intangible value. A public space is the framework of the city, its skeletal structure. It connects the footprints of its inhabitants and integrates the essential urban processes and practices. It is virtually impossible to imagine a city without public spaces. Patriarshy Ponds. Moscow (2011)
13
PUBLIC SPACE
For an industrial city, the function of space was primary to its everyday practices. Roads that connected different city districts (which, in turn, differed from one another in their specialization) were the key infrastructure. In a postindustrial city, it is people—with their opinions and demands—that determine its function and character. The intangible value of space is the key factor for a contemporary postindustrial city. The level of satisfaction with the quality of urban environment among different consumer groups, including citizens, entrepreneurs, and tourists, affects the city income both in terms of taxes, money spent in restaurants and stores, and in terms of the city’s immaterial value—its attractiveness for living, recreation, or business. From a space of industry and production, the city turns into a space for communications. Today, it is not roads, but public spaces that have become the key urban infrastructure. Public infrastructure must meet the ever-increasing demands of people for clean air and water, greenery, various recreational activities, communication with friends and family, or simply for anonymous existence in the city. All these demands cannot be satisfied without businesses that create added value for this infrastructure. Thus, the value of public spaces continues to rise and capitalize on the city’s brand. We tend to see the true value of something only when we lose it. As an intellectual provocation and exercise, let us examine the hypothetical development of an elite residential area in Patriarch’s Ponds, one of the most popular public spaces in Moscow. Discussing the loss of Patriarch’s Ponds will allow us to understand, why it is impossible.
!"#"$%&
!"#"$%&
!"#$%&'()*+,)+#
!"#$%&'()*+,)+#
-./"+)//)/
-./"+)//)/
!"#$ Fig.1. The Development of Patriarch’s Ponds
A poll by experts has demonstrated the main impacts of the project: -- The direct revenue of the space will increase. The construction will naturally bring high profits to the developer. City authorities will also obtain quick revenue from selling the land. -- The indirect revenue will not change much. The construction project will potentially lower the property value of the surrounding residential areas by 5 to 15 percent. Yet the value of commercial property, which is currently in high demand in Moscow, is unlikely to go down. -- The primary impact of the project will be a decrease in the social value and cultural significance of the space. The loss of Patriarch’s Ponds will severely and irreparably affect the attractiveness of that space for inhabitants and tourists, its quality of life, and the brand of the city.
14
THE VALUE OF MOSCOW PUBLIC SPACE
This example demonstrates how financial capitalization of space may destroy its nonmaterial value. The reverse is also plausible: a nonperforming asset may have a strong economic effect and produce significant nonmaterial capital. For this reason, I believe that when evaluating a public space we should single out the following three categories: direct revenue, indirect revenue, and intangible value. (Fig. 2).
0+1*2/#*.3#.*)
4+#*)5*)+).*/6"5
7.28"#$%'1%8"1)
'(""#"()* +,-"."#%* /012%#0#1
3",4*"&%,%"* 5(,6"* 3"&%,7(,#%&*8*9,:"& 3"#%,4*&"(-09"& ;#%"(%,0#."#%* <,&&*"-"#%&* =0%)*>(,#6*
?,%7("*8*@",4%2* ABC(%* DC..7#09,%0C# AC40%76" E,.04)*-,47"&*
9"*)3#%*)()+.)
0+:"*)3#%*)()+.)
0+#2+;"<8)%(28.)
Fig. 2. Value Categories
To estimate the value of a public space, we also need to look at the following indicators (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Value Indicators
9"*)3#%*)()+.)
0+:"*)3#%*)()+.)
0+#2+;"<8)%(28.)
DC&%&* 3"-"#7"*F*;:$90"#9)*
3",4*"&%,%"*B(09"&* ?7.>"(*C:*&2CB&*,#6*-"#6C(& ?7.>"(*C:*9,:G&*,#6*("&%,7(,#%&* ?7.>"(*C:*&"(-09"&*
50."*&B"#60#1* 50."*&B"#%*0#*B7>409*&B,9" H0&0%C(*&,%0&:,9%0C#* HC47#%""(0#1 IC#,%0C#&*
*
15
PUBLIC SPACE
Economic exchanges between the main stakeholders of a public spaces occur at the intersection of the various value components (Fig. 4).
'CC6&* 8*&"(-09"&
+7>409*1CC6&* 8*&"(-09"&
J#%,#10>4"* -,47"
J#60("9%* ("-"#7"
+7>409 AB,9" !"#$%&'()*+,)+# -./"+)//)/ DC#&7.B%0C#
5,K"&
5,K"&
Fig. 4. Circular Flow Model of Public Space
J#:(,&%(79%7("*8*("174,%0C#&
I0("9%*("-"#7"
Cities throughout the world have come up with their own unique approaches to managing public space to maximize its economic and nonmaterial value. The most successful models stipulate equal participation from the city officials, businesses, and citizens in questions of design, improvement, funding, maintenance, and management of public spaces.
=)>%?'*@%A':)8 LM#"(&20B
+4,##0#1
DC&%&
!"#"$%&
-2*3)8'+2%A':)8% LM#"(&20B
+4,##0#1
DC&%&
!"#"$%&
!"#$% &'()*+,)+# -./"+)//)/
Such polycentrism in organizing interaction between stakeholders usually results in mutual benefits for all participants. In the next part of the study, I will analyze the mechanisms for funding and managing public spaces in Moscow.
Fig. 5. New York and Barcelona. A Comparison.
16
THE VALUE OF MOSCOW PUBLIC SPACE
The Economy of Moscow Public Spaces In contrast to the examples of New York and Barcelona above, the system of decision-making, management, and funding public spaces in Moscow is still a monopoly. As a result, Moscow public spaces have low value and generate very low revenue to all the parties involved.
A'/3'>%A':)8 LM#"(&20B
+4,##0#1
DC&%&
!"#"$%&
!"#$% &'()*+,)+# -./"+)//)/
Fig. 6. Moscowâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Monopoly on Public Spaces
Few Muscovites bother to ask what comprises the city budget and how it is being spent.
!761"%*6"$90% ICJ*5*(7>4"&
HN L%2"(*%,K"&
ICBN GN
HN
P6-"(%0&"."#%
E"6"(,4*>761"%* %(,#&:"(&
D0%)*B(CB"(%)O* L%2"(*("-"#7"
DGN +"(&C#,4*J#9C."*5,K +"(&C#,4*+(CB"(%)*5,K
EFN DC(BC(,%"*J#9C."*5,K DC(BC(,%"*+(CB"(%)*5,K
BCD
*5
Fig. 7. Where the Moscow Ruble 2011 Comes From.
3Q!
Source: Moscow City Budget. City Council of Moscow. May, 2011. www.mosopen.ru
Fig. 8. Where the Moscow Ruble Goes To. Source: Ibid
BCH
*5
HN L%2"(*"KB"#60%7("&
BGN
3Q!
BEN +7>409*@",4%2
DIN ?,%0C#,4*;9C#C.) ?,%0C#,4*A"97(0%) P6.0#0&%(,%0-"*9C&%&
BFN AC90,4*+C409)
BFN ;679,%0C#
@C7&0#1*,#6* +7>409*A"(-09"&
17
PUBLIC SPACE
Unlike most other Russian cities, the two primary federal cities, Moscow and St. Petersburg, receive a substantial portion of their revenue from personal (individual) income taxes. Thirteen percent of the income of every Muscovite accounts for 37 percent (or 477.9B rubles) of the city’s total income. This is comparable to the portion of revenue to the budget of Moscow coming from corporate income tax. Thus, Muscovites have a direct means of influence on the development of the city. The main expenditure of Moscow’s budget, which includes expenditures for public spaces, is Utilities and Territory Improvement. This accounts for 17 percent of the city’s budget. Public space accounts for around 65 percent of the total area of Moscow, 12 percent of which is roads. Since the term public space is not defined in the current budget planning policy, Moscow’s budget has the following articles that make up for it: -- Improvement, including expenditures for improving and maintaining infrastructure of all types of common use areas, from courtyards of apartment buildings to specially preserved nature areas (national parks). -- Expenditures by the Department of Culture of Moscow for the maintenance of culture and recreation parks. -- Expenditures for environmental preservation and nature reserves. -- Expenditures for organizing municipal festivities and physical culture events. -- Targeted programs by the City Council of Moscow for revitalizing minor rivers and aquatic areas of the city, and improvement of cemeteries. -- Other.
According to the report for the year 2011, the City Council of Moscow allotted 6 percent, or 94.3B rubles ($3B), of the budget for public spaces.
ECD-
ICK-
/012%0#1
D74%7("*,#6** 3"9(",%0C#*+,(U&
H-
JCL-
L%2"(*;KB"#60%7("&
;-"#%&O*ABC(%&*,#6*/"0&7(" D"."%"(0"& A%(,)*P#0.,4*DC#%(C4 D,(*("9)940#1
FCK-
Fig. 9. Moscow Public Space Budget. Source: Moscow City Budget. City Council of Moscow. May, 2011. www.mosopen.ru
'(""#"()
BECG;#-0(C#."#%* ,#6*?,%7("
BHCEDC7(%),(6&
EDCD 3C,6&
BJBCD3C,6*:7#6
18
THE VALUE OF MOSCOW PUBLIC SPACE
Roads take up a significant portion of the city’s improvement budget. Forty-six percent of it goes for overhaul and upkeep of roads, bridges, embankments, sewage, and accompanying facilities. Expenditures for the so-called road fund—a federal off-budget fund for financing public roads— are a separate issue. Road funds of Moscow account for 121.3B rubles, which exceeds the total expenditures for public spaces by 27B rubles. At the same time, direct income from public spaces to the budget is low: the revenue from outdoor advertisement is 1.7B rub. or 0.1 percent of the total revenue to the budget of Moscow. The total volume of the Moscow outdoor advertisement market is 16.7B rubles ($547.5B). In this respect, the “war” against the overabundance of outdoor advertisement that Mayor Sobianin has declared is more of a popular gesture that will hardly affect somebody’s interests rather then the city’s budget. From the perspective of the Moscow budget, public spaces are unprofitable assets, which, however, form around themselves an enormous corporation on the city scale. The responsibility for public spaces is divided between twelve departments of the City Council, ten prefectures, and 125 municipalities. As a result, the only person responsible for making decisions is the mayor himself, controlling public spaces in manual mode.
A2$'*%'1%A'/3'>
I"B7%)*.,)C(& I"B7%)*.,)C(*C:*2C7&0#1O*9C..7#,4*&"(-09"&* ,#6*.7#090B,4*0.B(C-"."#%&*
DHCF-
DHCD-
RS*B(":"9%7("&
I"B,(%."#%*C:*@C7&0#1O*DC.T .7#,4*A"(-09"&*,#6*<7#090B,4* J.B(C-"."#%&
ECD-
I"B,(%."#%* C:*E7"4*,#6* ;#"(1)
I"B,(%."#%*C:*L-"(2,74* C:*@C7&0#1*E,9040%0"&
I"B7%)*.,)C(*C:* 7(>,#*B4,##0#1*,#6* 9C#&%(79%0C# JCF-
I"B7%)*.,)C(* C:*&C90,4*BC409)* B-
GCEI"B,(%."#%* C:*%2"*;#-0T (C#."#%
HI"B,(%."#%* C:*E0#,#9" B-
Fig. 10. The Officials Responsible for Moscow Public Space.
RVW* .7#090B,40%0"&
I"B,(%."#%*C:* DC#&%(79%0C#
I"B,(%."#%*C:* D74%7("
I"B7%)*.,)C(* C:*"9C#C.09*BC409) ICG-
I"B7%)*.,)C(*C:*.,&&*."60,O*0#%"(T("10C#,4* 9CCB"(,%0C#O*&BC(%&*,#6*%C7(0&.O*,#6*,6-"(%0&0#1* I"B,(%."#%*C:*+2)&09,4*D74%7("*,#6*ABC(%& +7>409*3"4,%0C#&*DC..0%%"" J#%"(("10C#,4*3"4,%0C#&*,#6*?,%0C#,4*+C40%09&* DC..0%%""
I"B,(%."#%*C:*%2"* DC#&7."(*<,(U"%
I"B7%)*.,)C(*C:* %(,#&BC(%,%0C# ICF-
I"B,(%."#%*C:* 5(,#&BC(%,%0C#
Source: Moscow City Budget. City Council of Moscow. May, 2011. www.mosopen.ru
In the first four months of 2011, amendments to the budget increased expenditures on public spaces by almost 85 percent. The analysis of the amendments has demonstrated that roads, greenery, and public amenities are recognized as priorities. Yet the budget structure and the system of managing public spaces have undergone virtually no changes. The only notable exception has been giving Moscow prefectures additional authority for arranging and improving green spaces in courtyards of residential buildings. The amendments increased the public spaces funding for the prefectures from 19B to 35.6B rubles.
19
PUBLIC SPACE
!":C("*,."#6."#%&
FD KE
!
L%2"(*"KB"#60%7("& /012%0#1
;-"#%&O*ABC(%&** ,#6*/"0&7(" D"."%"(0"& A%(,)*P#0.,4*DC#%(C4 D,(*("9)940#1
!
P:%"(*,."#6."#%&
MKCG3C,6&
MBICE-
MECF-
+7>409*,."#0%0"&* ;#-0(C#."#%* 0#*9C7(%),(6& ,#6*?,%7("
MJCH'(""#"()
A,." D74%7("*,#6** 3"9(",%0C#*+,(U&
Parks have become part of the program of the new mayor. As a public good, nowadays public parks often enjoy special attention from the heads of all cities. In political parlance, taking care of public parks is tantamount to providing special care and improving comfort for the inhabitants. If the mayor remains consistent in his policies, he will have to address the paradox of public greenery in Moscow. According to the Cities of Opportunity report by PricewaterhouseCoopers*, Moscow is one of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s greenest cities with 16 square meters of greenery per capita. Of the 26 cities studied, it occupies the second place, topped only by Stockholm. In terms of cultural vibrancy, Moscow scores 14th. In terms of sport and leisure facilities, the city ranks 21st, yielding not only to London, Berlin, New York, and Paris, but to Seoul, SĂŁo Paolo, and Mexico City. This contradiction exposes the very weak connection between greenery and recreation in the city. For this reason, the rest of the study will focus on the Nature and Recreation Complex of Moscow.
Direct Revenue from Moscow Parks In 2011 the City Council of Moscow allotted 17.6B rubles for greenery, which covers 45,000 ha, or 41 percent, of the city territory. The territory of Moscow consists of many types of public greenery. At the same time, only about 7900 ha, or 17.5 percent of it, can be defined as recreation one. The management system for public greenery in Moscow is as opaque as the system of all other public spaces as a whole. A significant portion of public greenery in the city does not have independent management status. Most of the public greenery areas are maintained by the Urban Engineering Services of the local district under the jurisdiction of the Department of Housing, Utilities, and Improvements,. Conversely, the public greenery that is independently managed is managed by the city bodies. The status of budget-funded entities significantly limits the economic activity of Moscow parks and nature reserves.
*
City of oppotunity. PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2011. http://www.pwc.com/us/en/cities-of-opportunity
Fig. 11. Moscow Budget amendments 2011
20
THE VALUE OF MOSCOW PUBLIC SPACE
=2#.*)%*)/)*()/
!"#$%;*))+)*$
&*))+% 5.<8"3%/523)/
RX*SSS%2,
VS*SYS%2,
X*ZWY%2,
BINIII2, Q(>,#*MCC6"6*,(",& ;#-0(C#."#%*B(C%"9%0C#*6"B,(%."#%
I"B,(%."#%*C:* D74%7("
JNLFL2,
KNIII2,
@0&%C(09*&0%"&* ,#6*CB"#T,0(* .7&"7.&*8* #,%7("*("&"(-"
'(""#*B7>409*&B,9"&*0#*60&%(09%& I"B,(%."#%*@C7&0#1O*DC..7#,4*A"(-09"&O* 8*<7#090B,4*0.B(C-"."#%&
BNEJG2, =74%7("*8* ("9(",%0C#* B,(U&
GNIII2,
Fig. 12. Public Greenery in Moscow. Management and Budget
L:$9"&*C:*1(""#"()*,#6* 1(C7#6&
Source: Moscow Greenery. City Council of Moscow. www.mosopen.ru; The Program for the Development of the Recreation and Tourism Industry. Department of Culture of Moscow. www.mosdepcultura.ru
BNKII2, A.,44*B,(U&* 8*>C74"-,(6&***
GNEEI2, '(""#*&B,9"&*C#*90%)*,#6* 60&%(09%*4"-"4
DNFII2, L:$9"&*C:*1(""#"()* ,#6*1(C7#6&
L%2"(*6"B,(%."#%&
BNILI2, D0%)*B,(U&*
L%2"(*6"B,(%."#%&
HLI 2, I0&%(09%* B,(U&
[R*2,O*R\*2, L%2"(*6"B,(%."#%& RS*B(":"9%7("&
Listed below are but a few of these limitations*. 1. Nonfunctioning mechanisms of public-private partnership; no concession mechanisms. 2. Limited revenues from leasing real estate. 3. Contractors are chosen based on the lowest bid, disregarding the quality aspect altogether. 4. Public parks and nature reserves could not (until July 1, 2011) generate income from vending stands located on their territories. (This was the prerogative of the prefectures.) 5. Lack of clearly established boundaries between public parks, nature reserves and other owners. Different land owners often coexist and share the same territory. 6. Limitations for construction and land development work imposed on the territories occupied by parks and nature reserves, which prevents the construction of (among other things) sport venues. 7. Seasonality of revenue. 8. The Program for the Development of the Recreation and Tourism Industry that was recently proposed the City Council, defines new performance indicators for the Nature and Recreation Complex of Moscow.
P2*@%2##)+:2+3)
VSRR
VSR\
BHCH*<
DI*<
BI*N
HI*N
BHNKII*2,
JBNEHJ*2,
?7.>"(*C:*-0&0%C(&*B"(*)",(
T)81S;)+)*2#):%*)()+.) +"(9"#%,1"*C:*>761"%
U*)2%'1%+2#.*)%% *)/)*()/ %
Fig. 13. New Performance Indicators for Moscow Nature and Recreation Complex *
*
The Program for the Development of the Recreation and Tourism Industry. Department of Culture of Moscow. www.mosdepcultura.ru
21
PUBLIC SPACE
Reaching these indicators requires a change in the laws of not only Moscow, but also the federal laws. Another significant problem for the Nature and Recreation Complex or Moscow is the lack of coordination between different departments that manage public greenery. The public greenery areas of Moscow should be viewed as a single system consisting of sites of varying importance that require different support mechanisms. On the one hand, the largest public parks, memorial parks, and boulevards of the city must be assigned different functions and specializations. On the other hand, the city needs a flexible system of support of public parks and squares in the suburbs, which today do not have the status of independent entities, but do have the potential for decentralizing the city. Perhaps a special department could be established that would coordinate and make strategic decisions for the upkeep and management of public greenery in Moscow. This department could be based on the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation or the Royal Parks, an executive agency of the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport in London. Until such a department is created, and taking into account the current muddled management system, the overall efficiency of budget investments will remain low. The case study of the economy of Kuzminki Park demonstrates, however, that the above list of issues is far from exhaustive.
Direct Revenue. Kuzminki Park. A Case Study. The Kuzminki Nature and Historic Park is located on the border of the South and Southeast Administrative Districts of Moscow. The park is managed by the Department of Specially Protected Nature Territories of the Southeast Administrative District, which is supervised by the Department of Nature Reserves and Environment.
Fig. 14. Owners and Entrepreneurs of Kuzminki Park
P.7&"."#%*B,(U
+(0-,%"*&92CC4
!C,%*("#%*&%,%0C# D27(92
ABC(%*947>
@C&B0%,4
<040%,()*B4,#% 3"&",(92*0#&%0%7%"
BNBLK
<7&"7.
+(0-,%"* U0#6"(1,(6"#
<C&9CM*.,#&0C#* C:*A,#%,*D4,7&
2,
-.:;)#%"+3',)%Q%FJCHA R11S<.:;)#%"+3',)%ICKA P)*,2+)+#%'>+)*/
O)+:'*%/#2+:/
<040%,()*,9,6".) D,#%C#."#%
THE VALUE OF MOSCOW PUBLIC SPACE
22
Only 1.6 percent of the park’s revenue comes from sources other than the city budget. At the same time, multiple permanent and temporary owners are located on, or registered at, the territory of the park. This, however, inhibits, rather than facilitates, its economic performance. For example, over forty third-party companies and entrepreneurs occupy the nature reserve. Some of them have existed there since the Soviet era; others popped up during the chaotic privatization initiative of the 1990s–2000s. Nowadays, these owners are not related to the park nor do they generate any revenue for it. Even small vendor stands until recently were under the jurisdiction of the Southeast Prefecture of Moscow. As I have stated earlier, however, under the new mayor the right for choosing locations for vending stands should pass over to the parks and nature reserves. The main source of revenue for the administration of the park outside the budget is ecology education activities, which covers everything from working with private and corporate clients, to consulting and organizing educational and other events. The park administration even cooperates with private and corporate benefactors. Using private donations, the administration puts up benches, plants trees, and carries out other low-cost upkeep. However, the current system of key performance indicators of the park administration has neither way of factoring in the number of park visitors nor the motivation for attracting outside investments. The preservation of nature as the main function of the park administration. Its ecology education program does not always align with commercial interests. And businesses will not invest in Moscow parks until the parks are able to make attractive, professional-grade offers for cooperation. One can assume, however, that the lack of off-budget funding is due to low demand for public spaces in Moscow. To understand this phenomenon, we need to analyze the market demand for public spaces.
Indirect Revenue. Neskuchny Gardens. A Case Study. Global experience suggests that public parks and real estate exist in a symbiosis, capitalizing on each other. To understand and demonstrate how these mechanisms work in Moscow, I chose Neskuchny Gardens. Neskuchny Gardens is a part of Gorky Park that does not generate direct revenue. At the same time, it is located in one of the most elite neighborhoods of Moscow, with relatively homogenous residential density. The high-value Stalin-era buildings prevail in an area of within 500 m (550 yards) within the boundaries of the park and make it very convenient for value analysis. To simplify calculations, I have chosen three rows of buildings—on Leninsky Prospekt, Frunzenskaya Embankment, and Komsomolsky Prospekt—and analyzed the prices of apartments that were for sale in the Stalin-era buildings on these streets. The price difference between the part of Neskuchny Gardens that borders Leninski Prospect and the embankment of the Moskva River on the opposite end is striking. Why does it cost more to look at the park than it does to live right next ti it? Below are a few of the factors that account for this. -- Housing heterogeneity. -- Traffic. -- The Moskva River view. As economist Alexander Dolgin has demonstrated in his research, the view may add over 25 percent to the cost of elite housing property *. -- Investment component. Frunzenskaya Embankment is an extension of the Golden Mile (the Ostozhenka-Prechistenka area)—the most expensive and least populated neighborhood of Moscow, where real estate is equivalent to a long-term capital investment.
*
“How much does the view from the window cost?”. The research report. “ArtPragmatica” Research Foundation, 2004. http://www.artpragmatica.ru/projects/?uid=130
23
PUBLIC SPACE
290k Komsomolsky Prospect
310k 2st line Frunzenskaya Embankment
355k 224k
1st line Frunzenskaya Embankment
!"#$%&'($)('&'"*+$,-."/(0#
Fig. 15. Indirect Value of Neskuchny Gardens The selection for the calculation consists of the market offers available for the period from April, 1 to May, 31. www.cian.ru
37
%
Price difference between Leninsky Prospect and Frunzenskaya Embankment
222k 1"#$%&'($)('&'"*+$,-."/(0#
Less than 200 k rubles per square meter 200–250 k rubles per square meter 250–300 k rubles per square meter More than 300 k rubles per square meter
In Moscow, a nice park is important but not the main factor affecting property value. The primary reason for this is the fact that public parks dominate the urban environment in only a few districts of the city. A well-designed and maintained park nearby is in demand among buyers with small children, and has a positive effect on the reputation of a neighborhood. The morphology of residential buildings and accessibility and parking space are important factors for the majority of the population. In addition, housing shortages during the Soviet era and the shortage of high-quality and affordable offers on the market today determine the buyers’ choice. One can conclude that the economic effect of public parks today has not been fully realized. This demonstrates the limited offers on the market and the fact that the demand for public spaces has not yet fully formed among the residents of Moscow. To estimate the possibility for changing this situation, let us look at the results of polls aimed at revealing the nonmaterial, or intangible, value of public parks to Muscovites.
Intangible Value of Moscow Parks. The hypothetical example of the residential development of Patriarch’s Ponds that I cited in the introduction demonstrated that the the quality of life and the city’s brand would suffer the most; the inhabitants of the neighborhood would bear the brunt of the negative impacts of the project. The loss of public space would affect their communications and recreational practices and how they would spend their leisure time. It also would destroy the sociocultural narrative of the neighborhood. These are the components that I will use to examine the intangible value of public space. Let us look at how Muscovites spend their leisure time and how much of it they spend in public space.
24
THE VALUE OF MOSCOW PUBLIC SPACE
B2%HK*.0#
B2%EI*.0#
i,4U&
JL*.0#
JL*.0#
A2CBB0#1*8*&"(-09"&
BL*.0#
DB*.0#
ABC(%&
BI*.0#
D*.0#
;#%"(%,0#."#%*8*974%7("
G*.0#
BI*.0#
+7>409*C(*("4010C7&* ,9%0-0%0"&
B*.0#
B.0#
5(,#&BC(%,%0C#
Fig. 16. Muscovites Time Spending in Public Spaces . Source: Rosstat, 2010.
Potentially, an average Muscovite on an average day may spend 40 minutes in public greenery (strolls or athletic activities). However, only 55 percent of the inhabitants of Moscow visit parks more often than once every six months. @CM*C:%"#*6C*)C7*-0&0%*B,(U&h
@CM*:,(*0&*)C7(*:,-C(0%"*B,(U*:(C.* 2C."h
DEN
A"-"(,4*%0."&*,*.C#%2
DIN
;-"()*M""U"#6
GHN
i,4U0#1*60&%,#9"
JFN
I,04)*F*A"-"(,4*%0."&*,*M""U
BHN
jS*.0#*>)*B7>409*%(,#&BC(%
BIN
A"-"(,4*%0."&*,*)",(
BIN
<C("*%2,#*jS*.0#*>)*B7>409*%(,#&BC(%
i2)*6C*)C7*1C*%C*B,(U&h
Fig. 17. The Preferences of Moscow parks visitors.
GHN ['%)/325)%#6)% /#*)//)/%'1%3"#$%8"1)N% #'%<*)2#6)%1*)/6%2"*
JLN
EJN ['%#2@)%36"8:*)+%1'*%2% >28@
BDN 5C*%,U"*92046("#*:C(*(06"&* 0#*,.7&"."#%*B,(U&
DJ
N
#'%582$%>"#6%36"8:*)+% '+%582$;*'.+:/
Source: â&#x20AC;&#x153;The demand for services in Moscow parksâ&#x20AC;?. The poll report. National Institute for Independent Social Studies, 2011.
5C*9C..7#09,%"*M0%2* :(0"#6&
DN 5C*6C*&BC(%& 5C*&""*.C#7."#%& 5C*.""%*#"M*B"CB4"
Those who prefer this type of leisure activity usually visit different parks, yet are inclined to spend most of their leisure time in parks that are nearby. The highest value for a park-goer is to escape the stresses of the city life, to breath fresh air. For this reason, a substantial number of visitors is unsure of what free or paid services they would want to see in parks.
Fig. 18. The demand for Services in Moscow Parks. Source: Ibid
E(""*&"(-09"&
+,06*&"(-09"&
DDN \+:)3":):
EKN \+:)3":):
EKN
JIN
+7>409*%C04"%&
3":("&2."#%*8*09"*9(",.*&%,#6&
BHN
BBN
!"#92"&
3"&%,7(,#%&*8*9,:G&
LN
KN
+4,9"&*:C(*92046("#O*&BC(%&*$"46&
!C,%*8*&BC(%0#1*"g70B."#%*("#%,4
GN
LN
+"%%0#1*eCC&
@C(&"*8*BC#)*(06"
FN
GN
+09#09*,(",&
P.7&"."#%*B,(U*(06"&
25
PUBLIC SPACE
This data was further proven by a series of interviews among the visitors of three public parks— Patriarch’s Ponds, Neskuchny Gardens, and Kuzminki Park—carried out by the Public Space studio, with support from the Sociology Department of Moscow State University. There is no doubt that parks as a public good have tremendous value. Moreover, the respondents often were unable to describe what they felt the public space was lacking or needed improvement. In addition to the acknowledgement that they placed a high value on parks, the interviews demonstrated that the participants were ready to support the parks by offering volunteer help or monetary donations.
U3#"("/#
V'328%0+()/#'*%
=);2#"("/#%
A%(C#1*&"4:T06"#%0$9,%0C#*M0%2*B4,9"
3",6)*%C*&7BBC(%*B,(U*#""6&*
DC#$(."6*]:(""*(06"(^
DHWHK
FIM
BLWJHN%EHM%
_`L`* P-"(,1"*0#9C."
_`L`* P-"(,1"*C(*,>C-"* ,-"(,1"*0#9C."*a
_`L`* L:%"#*,*&%76"#%O*("%0(""O*C(*7#".T
VbY*2(&*6,04)
J#:(,&%(79%7("*,#6*B7>409* ,."#0%0"&*0#*B,(U& 5(7&%&*4C9,4*,9%0-0&%&*40U"*20.T*C(* 2"(&"4:*
V*2(&*6,04)
<,(10#,4*9C..7#0%0"&* c,49C2C409&O*2C."4"&&O*"%9d @,&*#C*:(""*%0."*C(*0#%"("&%*0#* -C47#%""(*,9%0-0%) 5(7&%&*4C9,4*,9%0-0&%&
RbR`W*2(&
J#:(,&%(79%7(" <,(10#,4*9C..7#0%0"&* Q#M0440#1*%C*&7>&060e"*%2"*B,(U 5(7&%&*#C*C#"f*6C"&*#C%*>"40"-"*0#* %2"*("&BC#&0>040%)*C:*B"CB4"*C(*&%,%" * *
The respondents divided—approximately evenly—into Activists and Negativists. Additionally, some interviewers can be described as Investors—those who are not ready for volunteer work but could support the park with funding. Activists identify themselves deeply with the park’s neighborhood. Investors, however, are willing to sponsor the park even if they live in another neighborhood. The position of Negativists does not come from their intention to avoid responsibility for the park. More often than not it comes from their disbelief in the effectiveness of such efforts. Here are a quote from Negativist: “I don’t want to spend my spare time on something that is going to be destroyed by others, who come here much more often.” (Young woman, Patriarch’s Ponds). The level of trust is directly proportional to the volume of social capital that has been accumulated by a society or a territory. Russian society is characterized by an overall low level of trust. Visitors of Moscow parks, however, were happy to express what could raise their degree of trust, and how. The mechanism that they talk about can be described as the common cause. Both Activists and Investors require an incentive from outside. Both are ready to support a project with clear, well-defined goals. They consider transparency, positive examples and success stories to be good motivations.
Fig. 19. The Types of Moscow Parks Visitors
26
THE VALUE OF MOSCOW PUBLIC SPACE
HC47#%,(0&.*C(*IC#,%0C#&
P2#*"2*36X/%P'+:/
U3#"()%+)";6<'*/
Q(>,#*B,(U
?'L& ;#%("B("#"7(&
=)/@.36+$%&2*:)+/
0+"#"2#"()%+)";6<'*/%
D0%)*1,(6"#
Y.Z,"+@"% Fig. 20. The Voluntarism and Donations Potential
D("60%,>4"*&%,U"2C46"(&
Q(>,#*MCC6"6*,(",
;#%("B("#"7(&* D0%)*DC7#904O** .7#090B,40%)*+,(U*,6.0#0&%(,%0C#** P9g7,0#%,#9"&
P2*@%2:,"+"/#*2#"'+% 0+"#"2#"()%+)";6<'*/ ?'L& ;#%("B("#"7(&
The potential for social support of a park varies depending on its size and location (central versus peripheral). Kuzminki Park borders several residential blocks and does not create the same strong identity of its location as Neskuchny Gardens or Patriarch’s Ponds. Too many communities with different demands and priorities intersect on its grounds. The most common kinds of visitors here are Investors, who are ready to finance a group of initiative citizens of the park’s administration. Visitors of Neskuchny Gardens and Patriarch’s Ponds are primarily Activists, rather than Investors. Whereas Neskuchny Gardens enjoys a higher level of trust for its new administration, the only group that has gained any level of trust in Patriarch’s Ponds are local communities. The results above find further proof in the fact that both Neskuchny Gardens and Patriarch’s Ponds have established communities of friends of the parks. Perhaps the greater solidarity among the communities around Patriarch’s Ponds is explained by their common—and successful—efforts against raising a monument to Mikhail Bulgakov in the park and demolishing historic buildings around the area. Thus, the park space works as a catalyst for forming a social capital. Undoubtedly, the sociocultural uniqueness and narrative of a park has a great impact on the depth of the inhabitants’ identification with it. Visitors of each of the parks in question were happy to share their memories of those places. In each park there were residents from other parts of the city, who had visited it before and continued to visit it. Such narratives are an important resource for forming the identity of a cityscape, the city’s brand. My research has revealed the high non-economic value of public parks and recreational spaces in Moscow. The intangible value, however, has both an immediate and hidden potential. Today, this value is expressed in the satisfaction from the public good the visitors of the parks gain. A significant number of them identify themselves with that space and are ready to support the park financially or otherwise. Because of the shortage of social capital, it is important to realize the potential of such initiatives from below, and to facilitate the formation of societies of friends and supporters of parks. In the end, this will further increase the intangible value of parks and, by extension, the city as a whole.
27
PUBLIC SPACE
Conclusions This study has determined the following aspects of the economy of public green spaces in Moscow: -- The City Council of Moscow has a monopoly on managing and financing public spaces, in particular public greenery. The actual structure of management is confusing and spread among the various branches of executive power. -- The Department of Nature and Recreation Services of Moscow is further subdivided into multiple departments of various types with varying functions. There exists no single organization that is responsible for the strategy and coordination of the main nature and recreation zones of the city. -- Currently, public parks are unable to receive steady income and increase their portion of off-budget funding. Both legislative and functional obstacles are at play: conducting commercial activity and offering additional services to park visitors are often at odds with the parksâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; primary function. The primary function of nature reserves, which account for 25 percent of the total area of green spaces of Moscow, is environmental protection, rather than recreation. -- The indirect economic effect of public parks in Moscow has not yet been fully realized. Accessibility, homogeneity, and the views offered by a neighborhood remain more important to the residents than the proximity of a park. At the same time, as the quality of residential property increases, so does the importance of public greenery. One can assume that in the coming years the demand for public greenery will become one of the main market trends. -- Park visitors admit the high value of parks as a public good. Many of them have demonstrated their readiness to support the parks with volunteer work or sponsorship. These initiative can be used, provided there are well-defined goals and transparent accountability. Such initiatives must be organized from bottom-up: active neighbors have gained more trust among communities than officials. As Russian society becomes more atomized, such practices may facilitate the formation of social capital that is in high demand at the level of local communities. The above conclusions also seem relevant to other public spaces in Moscow, adjusted for a greater or lower level of commercialization, indirect economic effects, and intangible value. As of today, Moscow parks are public spaces full of unrealized potential. The financial investment that the city officials have outlined in their programs will hardly send a wakeup call to this capital, without a complete overhaul of the existing monocentric system of management of public spaces. The system must be changed from the ground up by creating legislative and institutionalized conditions for increasing the efficiency of municipal management and developing public-privatepeople partnership. Each park or boulevard must be viewed as a place where the interests of society, business, and city officials intersect. Mechanisms for involving businesses and society in the process of creating public spaces should be established. By proposing a Department of Parks of Moscow I did not intend to create yet another official organization that would become part of the existing system. My intention was to propose a single entity, an institution that would outline strategy and coordinate the disparate organizations that are currently in charge of various parks in Moscow. Only the main parks of the city would be under the jurisdiction of such a departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;those parks that are culturally significant to the inhabitants and tourists and that are now managed by numerous smaller departments. One particular function of my proposed department would be working with local parks on the outskirts of Moscow and abandoned green spaces in the form of grants, collaborative initiatives from local communities, businesses, and municipalities, based on, among other things, principles of cooperative financing.
THE VALUE OF MOSCOW PUBLIC SPACE
28
Developing a flexible system or partnership between different stakeholders will improve the parks’ quality. People will go to the parks with a new form of responsibility—not as consumers, but as collective owners of the space. The shift of the trend from unconscious consumption to conscious demand for parks will create options for the capitalization of that space. Ultimately, this will indeed make Moscow a city that is comfortable to live in.
Bibliography Agilica, Paul Dragos, Boetke, Peter J. “Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development: The Bloomington School”. (London: Routledge, 2009) Auzan, Alexander. “Institutional Economу for Dummies”. Supplement for Esquire (May, 2011) Coase, Ronald H. “The lighthouse in economics”. Journal of Law and Economics (October, 1974) Dolgin, Alexander. “The Economics of Symbolic Exchange”. (Moscow, 2006) Florida, Richard. “Who's Your City?: How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life”. (New York, 2008) Olson, Mancur. “The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups Review of Economics and Statistics” (The MIT Press) Public Parks, Private Partners. “How partnerships are revitalizing Urban Parks”. Project for Public Spaces, (New York, 2000) Samuelson, Paul A.”The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure”. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 36, No. 4. (Nov., 1954) How to Turn a Place Around. A handbook for Creating Successful Public Spaces. Project for Public Space, (New York, 2005)
IMAGE ABILITY NATURALNESS ALIEN OBJECTS PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC CONTROL SAFETY ACCESSABILITY ACTIVITIES SERVICES NAVIGATION
Wi-fi
Gate
Table
Road barrier
Bonfire
Waterside
Trash bin
Bench
Market stall
Sunshade
Restaurant
Road
Guardrail
Transport stop
Railroad
Pedestrian pass
Drinking fountain
Stage
Fence
Elevator
Amphitheatre
WC
Pay-gates
Bridge
Shower
Mall
Stairs
Empty space
Chair
Street cart
River
Parking
Street walkway
Sport field
P ATM
Lawn
Handrail
Moving walkway
Barbecue stove
Pavilion
i Monument
Animal
Escalator
Guard
Walkway
Playground
Callbox
Infobox
Fountain
Pond
Edge
CCTV
Elevated path
Skate ramp
CafĂŠ
Sign
Flag
Parterre
Pier
Police
Tunnel
Pool
Shop
Billboard
Sculpture
Tree
Underground pass
Light
Ramp
Observation point
Kiosk
Infostand
Technical area
Technical object
30
2.2 DESIGN AS ENABLER OF PUBLIC SPACE by Jezi Stankevic
Catalogue of elements to perceive Moscow public space design. This research is based on an existing hardware mapping approach for public space. The approach uses empiric observation to define public space hardware. It does so by deconstructing public space to its basic elements, and by using them as a tool to uncover both quality and latent significance of public spaces. Over the past two decades, Moscow’s public space shifted from political revolution to consumerist manifestation, clearly reflecting the public's shifting expectations. Consumer needs prompted Moscow’s residents to reinterpret their existing surroundings. Moscow’s public spaces in different ways translated the ideas of access, safety, and elements that are integral parts of public spaces. Urban space is filled with designed areas, such as embankments, subway stations, squares, parks, and market places. But in some cases, its design killed the place’s purpose, or at least destroyed it. Over the past two decades, the development of the capital’s public space was marked by a fast growth of services. The intense development of services shows a strong redirection of public space user attention, away from ideological faith and towards consumerism. Moscow’s public space design is mainly characterized by a low level of green and by high levels excludability. Parallel to that, a development of diversity of other public space elements is visible, especially those elements used for activity and safety. Furthermore, a noticeable move towards individual utilization of the space occurred.
31
PUBLIC SPACE
The transmutation of elements to icons
Catalogue of elements This is a tool to uncover the portrait of public space through learning to understand its hardware structure. To express public space hardware in more specific ways, we need to focus on hardware objects and parts like paths, fences, benches, trees, etc. I call these ‘elements.’ My approach was to deconstruct each site to different elements. I encountered 74 during field trip observations. I transmuted the elements to icons, and divided them by assessment criteria, rewarding an individual color to each element criteria group. The public space hardware was assessed by eight criteria. After several rounds of observation, the eight criteria were defined based on the difficulties I encountered in public spaces. First of all, accessibility and access questions are highly relevant for some of the sites (for example, Manezhnaya square and Gagarin square). Here, it is also important to study the divide between allowed and forbidden, or the so-called pedestrian traffic control. It is interesting to find the reasons and intentions behind the design of that traffic control. The next important point is the saturation of services (paid), and activities (free of charge). These influence the use of the place differently in each case. They create specific conditions for interactivity, while they also tell us about the attitude towards consumerism. The appropriation of public space hardware by consumerism is highly enthralling. While Moscow’s public space is very diverse, almost all places share a common trait: there is an imageability question in its hardware design. This question is closely connected to another topic: the level of green in Moscow’s public space. Although being green is considered a plus, it does not necessarily make a space unique. The safety question is always relevant in big cities like Moscow. The presence of police, CCTV, and guards suggests that public space needs to be watched. It was both interesting and important to check what places require safety control, how it is connected with public space typology,
32
DESIGN AS ENABLER OF PUBLIC SPACE
STRONG
IMAGE ABILITY Sculpture
Flag
Monument
Fountain
Tree
Lawn
Parterre
Animal
Technical object
Technical area
Handrail
Edge
Road barrier
Stairs
Police
Light
CCTV
Guard
Ramp
Elevator
Transport stop
Walkway
Sunshade
Wi-fi
Pool
Drinking fountain
Chair
Café
DELIGHTFUL
NATURALNESS Pond
UNRECOGNIZABLE
WEAK Parking
Pier
Gate
Underground pass
Waterside
Guardrail
Road
Railroad
Pay-gates
Fence
ACCESSABILITY Empty space Pedestrian pass
Tunnel
Street walkway
Bridge
Barbecue stove
Trash bin
Amphitheatre
Sport field
Bonfire
Table
Playground
P ATM
Stage
Kiosk
Callbox
Shop
Pavilion
Restaurant
Market stall
WC
Street cart
Infostand
Billboard
Sign
Infobox
SAFE
DANGEROUS
EASY
DIFFICULT
Shower
Bench
Skate ramp
HIGH
LOW
Observation point
PLUSING
i
NAVIGATION
STRONG
Moving walkway Elevated path
ACTIVITIES
Mall
RECOGNIZABLE
Escalator
SAFETY
SERVICES
GLOOMY
River
ALIEN OBJECTS PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC CONTROL
WEAK
EASY
LACKING
TANGLED
Assessment criteria
and what impact it has on the space’s hardware. Moscow is full of signage and advertisement, which explains the need for directions in public space hardware. Navigation causes a rise in the relevance of both readability and clarity of hardware design. There is a strong interconnection between accessibility and control topics. Finally, public space hardware in Moscow quite often contains infrastructure objects like conditioning columns, ventilation boxes, emergency staircases from underground buildings, and technical areas. I call these alien objects. They are problematic as they often are noisy, smelly, or both. To summarize, there are eight criteria to study the quality of public space hardware: imageability, naturalness, pedestrian traffic control, safety, accessibility, activities, services, navigation and existence of alien objects. Assessment structure I composed a matrix to assess public space. The consistence of the matrix’s hardware reflects a specific collection of particular public space elements in an abstract way. The matrix is the face (portrait) of a space. The unique consistence of elements helps to create a strong matrix identity: recognition.As they are based on information from real public spaces, the matrices appear in unique shapes. The shape of the matrix gives an insight in the general structure shape of a study site. The diversity of different type elements in the matrix shows the character of a public space. The spread of specific color elements in the matrix creates understanding of the actual hardware structure. It is possible to give a preliminary judgment based on the color, for example: the matrix of Manezhnaya square registers a fragmentation that is too high for a generic square. The assessment itself is based on dynamic magnitudes from each criterion, divided into four different values. The highest point of magnitude gradient refers to the highest diversity of elements, although it should be noted that this does not always equal better value. Specific element groups of the same color manifest itself stronger in case of a bigger diversity of its elements, and by assigning higher characteristics to the magnitude value. For example, the biggest diversity of pink color elements is reached when the control level on the site is high. In this case, the magnitude gradient should be set at a corresponding level.
33
PUBLIC SPACE
Distribution of element. Manezhnaya square
Assessment example - Manezhnaja Square This area knows a rich history of public activities. In the 19th century it became a central place for fests and merchant activities. In 1938 the square got the shape it has today, when the existing housing block was demolished to allow the construction of the metro. The square became a place for Soviet ideological manifestations and other large events. The design of the square was minimized to an empty space on an even ground level. In the early 90s, a prestigious competition was organized to redesign the square. The winning project proposed a green, open and even-level square, with underground commercial and public facilities. This specific design was not realized, however, the square’s 1997 reconstruction was based on it. Nowadays, Manezhnaya is strongly divided by different height levels and structured in functional zones through stairs and ramps. The whole area is designed like a maze. The different zones of the square are poorly connected, but easy to access from outside the square. Each zone is mutilated by large amounts of different height levels and technical objects that are part of the underground mall. Each zone is unique in its elements and character. The place is not pleasant… but people like it nonetheless. We can conclude from my research that Manezhnaya’s biggest problem is pedestrian traffic control, due to the square’s numerous obstacles. These elements are separating almost everything everywhere, which is why it received the highest pedestrian traffic control evaluation. This area knows a rich history of public activities. In the 19th century it became a central place for fests and merchant activities. In 1938 the square got the shape it has today, when the existing housing block was demolished to allow the construction of the metro. The square became a place for Soviet ideological manifestations and other large events. The design of the square was minimized to an empty space on an even ground level. In the early 90s, a prestigious competition was organized to redesign the square. The winning project proposed a green, open and even-level square, with underground commercial and public facilities. This specific design was not realized, however, the square’s 1997 reconstruction was based on it.
DESIGN AS ENABLER OF PUBLIC SPACE
34
Manezhnaya square MATRIX
Nowadays, Manezhnaya is strongly divided by different height levels and structured in functional zones through stairs and ramps. The whole area is designed like a maze. The different zones of the square are poorly connected, but easy to access from outside the square. Each zone is mutilated by large amounts of different height levels and technical objects that are part of the underground mall. Each zone is unique in its elements and character.
Manezhnaya square FACE
We can conclude from my research that Manezhnaya’s biggest problem is pedestrian traffic control, due to the square’s numerous obstacles. These elements are separating almost everything everywhere, which is why it received the highest pedestrian traffic control evaluation. Image ability, naturalness, accessibility and activities all received low evaluations. Both diversity and quantity (when talking about objects) of imageability elements is very high in comparison to the overall matrix size, which suggests huge difficulties with both place identity and image. The square lacks green, and those small strips of green that can be found, are carefully preserved behind fences and railings. On top of that, it’s forbidden to sit on the lawn of the square. Accessibility, as it is strongly connected with traffic control, is low. The only straight corridor-passage without obstacles is narrow and connects two poles of the square. Other paths are constantly interrupted by changing ground levels and stairs. Furthermore, the square lacks potential activities. In fact, there is no catalyst for interactivity among the square’s parts. Potential activities are unequally distributed in marginal parts of the square, where accessibility and green levels are questionable. Manezhnaya knows an exceptionally large amount of alien objects. Most of them are located above the square, such as the mall’s conditioning boxes. Some of those boxes are located next to sitting objects, which negatively influences their usability; the constant noise and smell from the boxes proves a real nuisance. The advantage of the presence of the conditioning boxes is that small birds are nesting inside there, although it leads noise to double in summer, bringing noise levels up to a level intolerable for public spaces.
35
PUBLIC SPACE
i
P
P
i i
i
i
i
i
i
P
i
P i
i
P
P
i
i
P i
i
P i
i
i
Other sites Matrices
Other research sites The same assessment structure used for Manezhnaya square was applied to six other public spaces in Moscow. The places were chose based on their particularities. The metro hub was chosen because of its unique design and its underground pedestrian passages that lead to metro stations and small commercial areas. It became an essential public space for Muscovites. People meet, eat, do business, sell fake diplomas, hide from the cold. Izmailovsky Kremlin & Vernisage turned out to be a very interesting discovery for me as a foreigner in Moscow. It is a cultural entertainment complex built in in the eastern part of the city between 1998-2007. The place is a good example of the shift from Soviet modernist planned design of land, to a capitalist approach to land use that introduced local traditions and design. Europe Square was built in 2001-2002 as a symbol of European unity. It was relevant for my research because: it represents the Russian understanding of the western square. The square is especially popular during warm seasons.Another interesting place in Moscow is Belaya Square. This is probably the best example of a public space where business and the city cooperate. Developers promised to restore the almost ruined Church and its surroundings in exchange for permission to build a huge business center next to it. The times I visited it, I realized that the place is very safe and friendly, full of different services. A relict of Soviet planning, Gagarin square, this tribute to Soviet most famous astronaut saw a thorough modification at the change of the millennium. It represents a manifest of the constructivist city: the city for the car. Now, almost a century later, the squareâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hardware provides everything cars need â&#x20AC;&#x201C; roads, tunnels, ramps, and bridges, while for pedestrians, there is only underground. The last reconstruction of the square did not create a public space but only empty spaces of alienation for its low hardware design quality. Recently constructed Strelka Institute is unique in Moscowâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public space. Full of different public events and activities, the spot was very relevant as an example of the latest trends in public space design. It was important to define this public space from a hardware point of view.
36
DESIGN AS ENABLER OF PUBLIC SPACE
METRO HUB
STRONG
MANEZHNAYA SQUARE
WEAK
STRONG
WEAK
iZMAILOVSKY KREMLIN & VERNISAGE STRONG
WEAK
GAGARIN SQUARE
EUROPE SQUARE
BELAYA SQUARE
STRELKA INSTITUTE
IMAGEABILITY WEAK
STRONG
STRONG
WEAK
STRONG
WEAK
STRONG
WEAK
NATURALNESS DELIGHTFUL
GLOOMY
DELIGHTFUL
GLOOMY
DELIGHTFUL
GLOOMY
DELIGHTFUL
GLOOMY
DELIGHTFUL
GLOOMY
DELIGHTFUL
GLOOMY
DELIGHTFUL
GLOOMY
ALIEN OBJECTS UNRECOGNIZABLE
RECOGNIZABLE
UNRECOGNIZABLE
RECOGNIZABLE
UNRECOGNIZABLE
RECOGNIZABLE
UNRECOGNIZABLE
RECOGNIZABLE
UNRECOGNIZABLE
RECOGNIZABLE
UNRECOGNIZABLE
RECOGNIZABLE
UNRECOGNIZABLE
RECOGNIZABLE
PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC CONTROL WEAK
STRONG
WEAK
STRONG
WEAK
STRONG
STRONG
WEAK
WEAK
STRONG
WEAK
STRONG
WEAK
STRONG
SAFETY SAFE
UNSAFE
SAFE
UNSAFE
SAFE
UNSAFE
SAFE
EASY
DIFFICULT
EASY
DIFFICULT
EASY
DIFFICULT
EASY
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
UNSAFE
SAFE
UNSAFE
SAFE
UNSAFE
SAFE
UNSAFE
EASY
DIFFICULT
EASY
DIFFICULT
EASY
DIFFICULT
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
ACCESSABILITY DIFFICULT
ACTIVITIES LOW
SERVICES PLUSING
DEFICIENT
PLUSING
DEFICIENT
PLUSING
DEFICIENT
PLUSING
DEFICIENT
PLUSING
DEFICIENT
PLUSING
DEFICIENT
PLUSING
DEFICIENT
NAVIGATION EASY
COMPLICATED
EASY
COMPLICATED
EASY
COMPLICATED
EASY
COMPLICATED
EASY
COMPLICATED
EASY
COMPLICATED
EASY
COMPLICATED
Assesment result table
Conclusions The assessment process showed that all the sites have their own character and composition, although on a smaller scale, there are similarities. In addition, chronological comparison between the seven sites tells a lot about the design priorities that were relevant when the different public spaces were designed. Chronological comparison also shows that design underwent a character transition. First of all, the sites share the traffic control topic as an extreme character trait. If I would speak for all seven sites, I would say that Moscow’s public space is suffering from what I call prohibition: public space is suffering from designs that actually forbid to be or feel free. Only Belaya Square and Strelka Institute, where a more liberal public space structure was introduced, decreased control. These places were designed later than the others I assessed, and hence their control decrease could be interpreted as an imminent change in Moscow’s design ideology. Green is not relevant for several public spaces, such as the metro hub. Its location provides obvious obstacles to green strips, but in other places its presence increases the general quality of the public space. The highest level of green can be found at the Manezhnaya, Gagarin and Europe squares. This was contrary to expectations, because the accessibility rate of these two squares is among the lowest of the researched sites, and they are dotted with obstacles. The sites’ accessibility rates don’t show chronological developments, although the sites from the second decade are better assessed than the ones from the first decade. My study shows that this correlates with a decrease in pedestrian traffic control levels. The only exception to this is Izmailovsky Kremlin & Vernisage (a multifunctional place with museums, restaurants, cafes and a flea market, built at the end of Perestroika). When we look at traffic features, it is worth mentioning that there is a proportional relationship between the sites’ navigation and their accessibility, with Manezhnaja and Europe square showing slight divergence. As a rule, the necessity of navigation increases when accessibility decreases.
37
PUBLIC SPACE
METRO HUB
MANEZHNAYA SQ.
IZMAILOVSKY KREMLIN & VERNISAGE
IMAGEABILITY NATURALNESS ALIEN OBJECT
PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC CONTROL
GAGARIN SQ.
SAFETY
EUROPE SQ.
ACCESSABILITY
BELAYA SQ.
ACTIVITIES
SERVICES
STRELKA
NAVIGATION
Asessment result by site (top) Assesment result by criteria (bottom)
Next, one of the most interesting assessments in studying Moscow’s public space is its dependence on consumerism (service criteria). This topic is highly relevant for all seven sites. Consumption is an important function for Moscow’s public spaces, which is indicated by a high level of commercialization. Even chronologically, the services were present during the whole period (for example at Manezhnaya and Strelka). It has been a major driver behind shaping public space.The variety of possible activities in the assessed public spaces is rather limited. Performance under this criterion is poor among the seven public spaces, with Izmailovsky Kremlin & Vernisage showing a slightly better performance. This site is part market, part cultural center, and hence provides a bigger variety of activities. But social-oriented Strelka, with its exceptionally rich pallet of activities, is the bright spot among Moscow’s public spaces in this regard. Finally, safety presence showed an increase, especially in the second decade. This could lead to two totally different conclusions. Firstly, Moscow’s public space is becoming less safe, caused by the increasing level of services, and secondly, Muscovites lack social awareness, and therefore refuse to take personal responsibility for their public space.
Distribution of element by criteria\
The assessment process made it clear that, starting in the first decade, the design of Moscow’s public space is very complex and unnecessarily mazed. Usage is insufficiently individualized. This suggests a discrete de-motivation of public space usage, or at least an intention to bar people from certain activities, protest for instance, and is clearly noticeable at Manezhnaya Square. It should be explained by the strong influence of politics over design in that period, when masses of people were fighting for their rights and the social situation was fragile. Both decades are marked by a fast growth of services. This indicates a strong redirection of public space user attention, away from ideological faith - towards consumerism.The second decade shows positive changes in public space design, especially in developing better accessibility and a bigger amount of possible activities. However, pedestrian traffic control showed a decline, but not sufficiently to take away the tension with this issue in Moscow’s public spaces.
Distribution of elements by site
DESIGN AS ENABLER OF PUBLIC SPACE
38
The catalogue of elements has reasonable potential to appear as a tool for both research and design. Application of the catalogue widens the possibility to use the same language for both research and design when developing or reconstructing public spaces. The catalogâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research approach is to execute, study and collect in order to uncover the latent significance of public spaces, and the design approach is to shape, strengthen or modify that significance. The design approach mainly focuses on creating design patterns based on existing design. If assessment shows characteristics of existing public spaces, we get to know what makes places comfortable to use and what makes it successful, or the other way around. Research, assessment and design are inevitably complex. The elements catalogue is an open source tool, making research criteria and element typology open to constant updates. This allows the assessment process to be shaped according to local characteristics.
Bibliography Eco, Umberto. " An Introduction to Semiotics". (Toronto, 1994) Hou, Jeffrey. "Insurgent Public Space". (New York, 2010) Paperny, Vladimir. "Kultura Dva". (Yaroslavl, 2007)
war in Moscow public space terroristic acts
1977 1979 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 WARS Soviet war in Afghanistan
first Chechen war
second Chechen war Vladimir Putin declared the end of the military conflict in Chechnya
0
225
13
0
121
23
49
14
40
35
20
WOUNDED 20477 people
78
3
251
61
20
100
64
251
61
88
180
1. Metro Tretyakovskaya
1. Inturist hotel 2. Okhotny ryad shopping mall 3. dwelling house Guryanova st., 19 4. dwelling house
1. Pushkinskaya sq., underground passage
1. Metro Belorusskaya (ring)
1. Metro between Avtozavodskaya and Paveletskaya 2. Bus stop near Kashirslaya metro station 3. Area near Rizhskaya metro station
1. Cherkizovsky market
1. Metro stations Park Kultury and Lubyanka
1. Domodedovo airport
according to FOM afraide of teracts
68%
think that teract can happen again
62%
1. Tushino aerodrom 2. 1st Tverskaya-Yamskaya 3. Area near National hotel
18
1. Pokryshkina st, McDonalds 2. Hostage taking Dubrovka, Theatre center
DEAD 547 people
1. Metro between Izmailovsky park and Pervomayskaya 2. Nikolskaya st. 5 3. Lubyanskaya sq.
9
1. Metro between Tulskaya and Nagatinskaya 2. trolleybus # 3 Pushkinskaya sq 3. trolleybus #48 Prospect Mira 4. Kotlyakovo cemetery
TERRORISTIC ACTS
peace in Moscow public space present and latent
1977 1979 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
uncovering
n atio v r se pre
start of exponential growth of uncovering initiatieves in Moscow
g recoverin
smART protest
start of mass voluntary participation in subbotniks
different preservation movements united into one organization â&#x20AC;&#x153;ArchNadzorâ&#x20AC;?
partisipation in subbotniks stoped being obligatory
migra tion
political p rotest
different preservation initiatives appeared in Moscow
40
2.3 PEACE AND WAR IN PUBLIC SPACE Insurgent Activism by Anna Butenko
Insurgency — is a rebellion against a constituted authority when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents. (according to En-En Oxford dictionary)
Can we learn more about Moscow society by observing public space and vice versa? Relevance. Urban public space is a place which defines the quality of the city life, this is what the city is associated with, and is the place which is used by all the citizens. The fact that in public space different social groups meet and coexist makes this space a mirror of the social condition, it reveals social conflicts and becomes a battlefield of different social interests. The condition of the society can be understood through observation of activities which take place in city’s public spaces. Conversely, the study of social problems and conflicts, helps to define the role of public space in city’s life. In today’s Moscow life there are several groups of insurgent activists present. Although they deal with different problems and approach them by different means, for all of them Moscow public space is a platform for collaboration and search for new followers, a tribune for spreading their ideas, stating their goals and calling for action. The research of insurgent activities present in Moscow public space makes us wonder about the contemporary needs of the Moscow society and the role of public space in city’s life. Conclusion. Pacification movements help build urban social capital, therefore it should be recognized by city authorities that activism in turn improves the investment potential of the city. The more nonviolent peaceful movements, actions and events will appear in Moscow, the more people will get involved in public life of the city, the more common goals will be achieved and more problems of the society will be solved. Methodology. Research framework was established through extensive consultations with experts in sociology, migration and demographics of Moscow. We derived key factors affecting Moscow society and links between them to guide the research on existing political, economical and protest moods of the society. As a result of that analysis we developed an outlook for most crucial activist tendencies in Moscow.
>
strelka 41
institute
PUBLIC SPACE PUBLIC SPACE
Portrait of Muscovites Portrait of Muscovites. Moscow isisthe and Europe with over 11 11 000000 000000 of permanent Moscow thebiggest biggestcity cityagglomeration agglomerationininRussia Russia and Europe with over of permacitizens. 85% of them are of russian nationality, 63% of Moscow population are people the of the nent citizens. 85% of them are of russian nationality, 63% of Moscow population areof people working age, working age, with with aaslight slightpredominance predominanceofoffemale femalepopulation. population.
54% females
13,5% age: 0-15
53%
46%
lived from birth
males
63%
24%
working age: 15-59
retirement age
40,6% lived not from birth
85% russians
11%3%
migrants foriegners from former USSR
Portrait of muscovites in charts Portrait of muscovites in charts. StructureofofMoscow Moscow population according Structure population according to to Rosstatresearch research data of 2010. Rosstat data of 2010. -
individual interests priority
70%
43%
individual approach
53%
orthodox attitude
4%
protestant attitude
66%
reformers/ conservatives
29%
collective approach
religion/ethics
“russian system” -
mass/individual
type of state
Muscovites Self-Reflection of Muscovites. The research "Scenarios for Russia 2", held in 2003, on the basis of direct questions provides a picture of society, whichfor dismisses popular notion ofbasis a need of paternal care.got Onathe contrary, The research "Scenarios Russia 2",the held in 2003, on the of direct questions picture of the research the the society ready to reforms, which value personal independence society, whichreveals dismisses popular notion of a need of paternal care. On freedom, the contrary, the research and is able and willing toto take responsibility for their lives.freedom, 66% of people answering questions reveals the society ready reforms, which value personal independence andthe is able and of existential proved be carriers of of thepeople Protestant ethic,the despite the declared comwilling to takemeaning responsibility fortotheir lives. 66% answering questions of existential mitment the Orthodox faith.ofAnd despite a shift towards individualism, the results of the meaning of proved to be carriers thealso, Protestant ethic, despite the declared commitment of the research manifest ability and willingness of people to combine personal interests with the collecOrthodox faith. And also, despite a shift towards individualism, the results of the research manifest tive ones. ability and willingness of people to combine personal interests with the group ones.
conservatives
33%
reformers
66%
Self-identificationofofmuscovites muscovites. Self-identification Valuesand andpreferences preferences Moscow society Values of of Moscow society accordingtotoresearch research “Scenarios for Russia according “Scenarios for Russia 2. 2. Normalpeople peopleininabnormal abnormalcountry”, country”, 2003 Normal 2003
The development elite elite of of Moscow Moscowsociety, society,which whichisisformed formedbyby people busy in the most urgent The development people busy in the most urgent and and needed public services, is separated into 2 opposite parties one side supports the existing needed public services, is separated into 2 opposite parties - one side supports the existing power power hierarchy and is against theone, second one, slightly larger in size, reforms hierarchy and is against changes,changes, the second slightly larger in size, stands for stands reformsfor and and transformation of state towards development of local self-government and bigger institutional transformation of state towards development of local self-government and bigger institutional openness ofthe theauthorities authoritiestowards towardssociety. society. openness of That showsthat thatthe thesociety’s society’sinclination inclinationtotoreforms reformsisisbigger biggerthen thenofofpolitical politicalelite’s. elite’s. And the fact That shows And the fact that government does does not notrespond respondtotorequests requestsfrom fromthe themajority majorityofofsociety society and does acthat the the government and does notnot accept cept them leads to loss of confidence, frustration and lack of conscious participation. them leads to loss of confidence, frustration and lack of conscious participation.
60%
” party “old approach
support the the power vertical not interested in open competitive society
science & education mass media public expertise
50/50
state managers defence & security of state jurispudence entreprenuership corporate managers health service
supremacy of of law institutional ensuring openness of the authorities towards society development of local self-government government investment in human capital
orters reforms supp
90%
Moscow’s development elite’s preferences. Moscow’s development elite’s preferences. Structure of Moscow development elite’s Structure Moscow development elite’sMission accordingofto research of Fund Liberal according research for of Fund “New elite:todemand new Liberal policy”,Mission 2008) “New elite: demand for new policy”, 2008
42
PEACE AND WAR IN PUBLIC SPACE
Population in transition. In the last 20 years after the USSR collapsed certain changes in politics, economics and ideolPEACEthe ANDprocess WAR IN PUBLIC SPACE transformation. New living conditions and circumstances 10 ogy started of population created new spheres of interests and thus, new conflicts among stakeholders. Whereas Moscow society was able to adjust to certain new economic, social and politicl conditions, there are still a lot of remaining conflicts to resolve. Population in transition Migration problems are one of the most violent sphere in the contemporary Moscow society. After USSR economical changes in regions Moscow economical boom very inIn thecollapsed last 20 years after the USSR collapsed certainand changes in politics, economics andprovoked ideology started tensive migration flow fromtransformation. other Russia regions and from former republics to Moscow. For the process of population New living conditions and USSR circumstances created new spheres of interests and so, new of conflicts of interests. On some its new conflicts society was now the problem of migration infields Moscow is a problem of illegality, asofwell as the problem of differable to solutions and compromises, some ofleading the conflicts still need to be Migration ences in find cultural attitudes between traditional orthodox culture of solved. Moscow citizens, “old” problems are one the most violent sphere That in theiscontemporary society. After public USSR space muslim citizens andofnew-coming muslims. the differenceMoscow in culture of urban collapsed economical changes in regions and private Moscowactions, economical boom provoked usage, different borders defining public and difference between very ruralintensive and urban migration flow to Moscow from other Russia regions and from former USSR republics. For nowintegrated the lifestyles. Russia is historically a multinational country, and in regions where muslims are problem of migration in Moscow is a problem of illegality, as well as the problem of differences in in everyday life the level of tolerance is the highest. But the lack of history education, integration cultural attitudes between traditional leading orthodox culture of Moscow citizens, “old” muslim programs and no clear state policy on migration makes Moscow public space a battlefield of difcitizens and new-coming muslims. differencehate, in culture urban usage,towards ferent nationalities. For now, that isThat not isa the single-side both of sides arepublic highlyspace intolerant different borders defining public and private actions, difference between rural and urban each other. Attitudes and actions related to the migration process in Moscow is a biglifestyles. bundle of Russia is historically a multinational country, and in regions where muslims are integrated in everyday contradictions, unrelated data, fears, hate and threats. Proponents of different points of view aplife the level of tolerance is the highest. But the lack of history education, integration programs and no peal to different figures of the national structure of the population, different dozens of times. The clear state policy on migration makes Moscow a battlefield of different nationalities. For now, that is not lack of reliable facts about the national structure of the inhabitants of Moscow generates an even a single-side hate, both sides perform mainly intolerance towards each other. Attitudes and actions greater number of disputes, fear and xenophobia. In the last years xenophobia is becoming bigger related to the migration process in Moscow is a big bundle of contradictions, unrelated data, fears, hate although migration is becoming the only source of nature replenishment loss of the population. and threats. Proponents of different points of view appeal to different figures of the national structure of the population, different dozens of times. The lack of reliable facts about the national structure of the inhabitants of Moscow generates an even greater number of disputes, fear and xenophobia. In the last years xenophobia is becoming bigger although migration is becoming the only source of nature replenishment loss of the population.
According to population census 2002 National structure of Moscow society and mass media reviews.
3% 13% {
other nationalities 300 000 uzbeks 100 000 moldovans 100 000 tajiks 100 000 gourgians 100 000 chechens 100 000 jews100 000 azeris 100 000 armenian 126 2409 tatars 168 320 ukranians 256 688
84%
russians 9 670 000
1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1,2% 1,6% 2,44%
{
15 200 000 people
National structure of Moscow society
11 514 300 people
differency in 3 500 000 people between official and unofficial statistics create a field of speculations and uncertaincy
6% 36% {
0,6% 0,6% 0,9% 1,3% 1,9% 1,9% 1,9% 1,9% 3,2%
other nationalities 940 000 dagestans 100 000 bashkirs 100 000 uzbeks 150 000 tajiks 200 000 chechens 300 000 moldovian 300 000 gipsy 300 000 gourgian 300 000 jews 500 000
9,8%
azeris 1 500 000
3,9 %
armenian 600 000
5,9%
tatars 900 000
1,6%
58%
ukranians 250 000
russians 9 670 000
According to population census 2002 and mass media reviews.
Public space becoming a battlefield When there is an excess tension of unresolved problems within changing society, when different interests deeply contradict and no compromising solution is found, the public space of the city is becoming a place of violence and war. The quintessence of that tendency are terroristic acts happened in Moscow, which are the consequences of unresolved political and nationalistic problems.
43
PUBLIC SPACE
Public space becoming a battlefield When there is an excess tension of unresolved problems within changing society, when different interests deeply contradict and no compromising solution is found, the public space of the city is becoming a place of violence and war. The quintessence of that tendency are terroristic acts happened in Moscow, which are the consequences of unresolved political and nationalistic problems.
Why study activism? We decided to study what initiatives in Moscow appeared without the involvement of the state in order to learn more about the gap between promoted society goals and citizens’ actual needs. Activism may tell us a lot about the current state of society. We therefore explore how urban movements reveal themselves in public space, what type of actions cause a massive support and interest. In result, we hope to get a clearer picture of Moscow society, its problems and the role of the public spaces of the city in the development of citizens.
Political contesting. The main political protest action is manifestation. In early 90th mass political protest actions leaded to change of power leadership. In the last 10 years the number of political protest manifestations increased as a reaction to the amount of adopted laws, which decrease freedoms. But those actions didn’t provoke any state changes or law canceling. They also where not supported by mass and gather maximum of 2 000 participants, while in 1990th the number of participants was around 2 000 000 people at a time. The possible reason for that can be the fact that political protest actions are brutally repressed by the state. Also it can be said that the common rhetoric of political protest movements is based more on opposing the existing government rather then collaboration around any specific policies or reforms.
Political protest. In the last 10 years the number of political protest manifestations increased ,but those actions didn’t provoke any state changes or law canceling, are not supported massively by population.
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 The first democratic elections to the Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR The start of the Communist Party’s reformation
Constitutional crisis. The crackdown of the parliament
Vladimir Putin became Prime Minister
Boris Eltsin resigned from the presidency and named Vladimir Putin acting President of Russia
Soviet coup d’état attempt (August coup). The resignation of Mikhail Gorbachev The law on a state enterprise. The beginning of spontaneous privatization
Liberalization of prices
Collapse of rouble
Assasination of journalist Holodov
Law on morality
The assassination of Vlad Listiev first CEO of ORT TV Channel
manegnaya sq. the biggest manifestation of Perestroika support of Elzin suverenitet of Russia
millions of people on streets on the day of Vlad Listev funeral
during the parade on the 1st of May on Red Square comes the colomn with tricolor flags and claim for free election Civil war start of communistic manifestations action E.T.I.
manifestations against liberalization of prices
mass demonstrations for the abolition of 6 th article of the constitution
Dmitri Medvedev had been elected President of Russia
The arrest of the Yukos company owner Mikhail Khodorkovsky The main asset of Yukos company, Yuganskneftegaz had been sold
The new law on political parties
The guilty verdict in Yukos case to Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and Andrey Krainov The assesination of the Russian Forbes magazine's editor in chief Paul Khlebnikov The amendments to the law on political parties. The parties should have no less then 50 000 members in more than half regions of Russia
New management of NTV channel took over the company Boris Berezovsky solds controlling share in ORT TV Channel
The close-down of all offices of international NGO adopted a new-old national anthem of the Russian Federation The stop of the TV 6 channel broadcasting The assesination of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya The new law on manifestations and demonstrations. Restrictions to the freedom of assembly The case of the Radio station Freedom’s journalist Andrey Babitsky The new law on referendums. Restrictions to the free expression of will
The law "Freedom of religion"
Red square The plane of Germany citizen Matias Rust landed at the square.
Vladimir Putin had been re-elected President of Russia
Russian government declares itself a bankrupt Coal industry was losing money, salary arrears for 6-9 months
6th article of Constitution was cancelled Law on freedom of traiding The ban on censorship for mass media The legislation on manifestations The stop of the Western radio-stations’ damping The law on complaint procedure of illegal acts of officials
Vladimir Putin had been elected President of Russia
Boris Eltsin won the presidential elections
The referendum on the sustaining of the USSR
Armed clashes between demostrator against Yeltsin policy and police
The rummage in the office of Media Most company (NTV channel, Itogi magazine, etc. The arrest of Vladimir Gusinsky The reform of the Council of Federation 250 miners break up a tent camp near the White House, demanding the resignation of the government manifestations for and against old national anthem manifestations in support of NTV Channel
manifestations of labor unities
The revocation of the governor’s elections The parlament elections reform. The revocation of the single-mandate elections, the imposition of 7% barrier for political parties Dissenters March Strategy 31 manifestation to support Khodorkovsky and other Dissenters day Strategy 31 political prisoners Dissenters March Dissenters day manifestation ‘Free people’ Day of people’s anger manifestation for Dissenters March fare and free elections manifestation ‘Russia against Putin” Dissenters March Strategy 31 Dissenters March Fire in Old Manezh in the day of presidential elections Dissenters March in memory of Anna Politkovskaya first manifestation Dissenters March Dissenters March Strategy 31 Strategy 31 2 activists of National Bolshevik Party hanged 10-meters streamer “Putin, go away!” Strategy 31 manifestation in a memory manifestation Strategy 31 of killed journalists against Putin Strategy 31 manifestation in support of NGOs manifestation against censorship
Strategy 31 Manezhnaya square Dec Strategy 31
P O L IT IC A L C H AN G E S
P O L I T I C A L C H A N G E S C A U S E D M A N I F E S TAT I O N S
LAWS, WHICH INCREASE FREEDOMS
LAWS, WHICH INCREASE FREEDOMS, CAUSED MANIFESTATION
LAWS, WHICH DECREASE FREEDOMS
LAWS, WHICH DECREASE FREEDOMS, CAUSED MANIFESTATION
MANIFESTATIONS
MANIFESTATIONS, WHICH CAUSED LAW OR POLITICAL CHANGES
44
PEACE AND WAR IN PUBLIC SPACE
Nationalistic contesting. After 90th a big amount of nationalistic organizations appeared. Nationalistic parties, movements and actions probably deal more with politics then with xenophobia, they might be perceived as a result of non-clear state policy in migration and external policy and also the nationalistic movement appear to be the most consolidated party of russian opposition to state, as soon as no other party but nationalistic one is consolidated enough to perform a real opposition force to the existing power . Nationalistic and antinationalistic organizations. In the last 20 years appeared a big amount of nationalistic organizations, which consolidate and participate in common actions. Besides the nationalistic organizations appeared structures helping migrants, but the amount of such organization is much smaller then the nationalistic ones, and in contrast to many public actions against migrants, almost no mass actions supporting migrants was held in Moscow public space.)
This big nationalistic movement consists of different parties with different approaches, but while democratic forces couldn't and still can't come to any certain compromise between each other, nationalistic ones can and because of that they present a real strong power on contemporary political arena. Although nationalistic approach is very violent and aggressive, within themselves participants of nationalistic movement gained there strength in being in-violent and tolerant towards each other. In Moscow, by contrast to aggressive nationalistic organizations, there are also organizations that help migrants in integrating into society, legalization, and on psychological problems. But the number of such organizations is much smaller than that of the aggressive ones; most of them are representatives of the European human rights organizations, and. Unlike the mass actions of aggression against migrants in Moscow, no large-scale campaign supporting migrants was carried out to date.
1985 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
organizations helping migrants
nationalistic organizations 1 500 000
pro p rohib it
d
pr oh ibit
ed
antimigrational protests in Moscow public space
antinationalistic actions in Moscow public space 300 000
168 990 126 744 84 496
massacre on Manezhnaya sq
massacre on Manezhnaya sq
massacre of trading places
massacre of Vietnamese dorm
Krishna temple massacre
Russian March beating of American Embassy employee
field of speculation about of Moscow based on difference between According to population census 2002 official data and mass and mediaunofficial reviews. National structure of Moscowstructure society the national
ed
hib i te
45
PUBLIC SPACE
Preservation protest. Another scenario of protest is performed by preservation protest organization Archnadzor. The number of their supporters is constantly growing. Organization succeeded in preservation of many buildings in Moscow, the amendment of laws, and even the cancellation of all permits for demolition in the city center. To carry out their struggle they not only loudly expressed their dissatisfaction, but also developed the technology to attract people â&#x20AC;&#x201D; in addition to protests and campaigns in courts, ArchNadzor hosts exhibitions, seminars and lectures explaining the cultural and economical value of what they protect. It is very significant that the dialogue with potential supporters of the movement, and with authority, are being held in as friendly tone as possible and explains the importance and eliminates cultural illiteracy.
Structure os ArchNadzor movement - preservation protest organization.
ArchNadzor MoskvaArchNadzor kotoroi net MAPS Moskva kotoroi net ProtivMAPS loma SovArch Protiv loma MosKultProg SovArch MosKultProg
protest actions At the end of 2008 different movements protest actions 1 per year manifestations claiming and fighting for preservation of single picketing 2-4 per month 1 per year architectural heritage in Moscow united manifestations into single picketing 2-4 per month one organization. After that they developed enlightment actions united in one group in 2008
> >
united in one group in 2008
exhibitions 1 per month enlightment actions lectures 2 per month exhibitions per month excursions every1 day lectures 2 per month excursions every day special actions tram ArchNadzor special actions City under the open sky tram ArchNadzor Shatalisha on buolevards City under the open sky work with mass media on buolevards Shatalisha workwork of lawyers with mass media
of lawyers workwork of developers work of developers
different strategies of fighting for their goals including not only protest actions, but cultural events like exhibitions, lectures and excursions in order to explain to a wide variety of people their goals and importance of their desires.
Partizanship. The action of individual art protest. In last 5 years different movements and actions looking for new forms of fighting and dialoguing with a state power started to appear.
1968 1970-1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Monstration 4000 people (in Novosibirsk) Monstration 4000 people (in Novosibirsk)
1968 1970-1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
ovosham.net Moscow ovosham.net
Moscow
RosPil Dick prisoned by FSB 6 671 870 St. roubles sent RosPil by 15 000 citizens DickPetersburg prisoned by FSB Innovation 2011 6 671 870 St. Petersburg roubles sent by 15 000 citizens Innovation 2011
46
PEACE AND WAR IN PUBLIC SPACE
Partizanship. SmART protest actions. Another common type of the protest — individual actions, offering a new version of protest and new methods of struggle, they don’t necessarily attract mass support, and don’t need it. But these actions attract the attention and support of large numbers of people and provoke strong reaction, they seek for and offer new forms of behavior and are self-sufficient. Lack of people support or mass participation in such actions do not deprive them of their value and do not diminish their results. This is a new intellectual process of protest, which appeals to mental activity. Mainly these actions are committed and born not in Moscow. Recovering. Collective action of care and recovering the urban public spaces, such as subbotniki, collect a large number of people. Subotniki started as an act of voluntary non-binding work, but quickly turned in the USSR to be need-causative. But in recent years people again massively and voluntarily began to clean up public spaces of the city. Organization of these collective actions is not only confined by urban public institutions but also by civil society organizations, many of which appeared in the last 5 years. They were mostly organized by young people of 20-30 years. They convince people to take action not by rhetoric, that the state and municipal services can not cope, but just explain the necessity to go out and clean. And succeed in that. Also,when there were fires the last summer people very quickly organized themselves to solve this problem. It turns out that when there is a clear purpose and need for active steps, when no one is asked to hate, but to help and act, there are no problems with consolidation, self-organization and sense of responsibility. Recovering. The action of bringing something into previous condition. Also, when there were fires the last summer people very quickly organized themselves to solve this problem.
1920 - 1930
1931 - 1940
Subotniki started as an act of voluntary non-binding work, but quickly turned in the USSR to be need-causative. But in recent years people again massively and voluntarily began to clean up public spaces of the city.
1941 - 1950
1951 - 1960
1961 - 1970
1971 - 1980
1981 - 1990
1991 - 2000
2001 - 2011
voluntarily mandative
1 500 000 - 2 000 000 people
MAP OF FIRES
47
PUBLIC SPACE
Uncovering. In the last 5 years in Moscow appeared a huge number of initiatives and public spaces which aim is to create new forms of exploring the city, of lifestyles, interests or expression of opinions. Their main tool of attraction is education, or so called edutainment. They are very popular among Moscow citizens and always gather big amount of followers and people interested. All these initiatives collaborate with each other around common interests.
Non-violence. Different insurgent groups in Moscow while dealing with their problems and fighting for there interests use different technologies and types of actions. It can be observed that some of the actions are violent and intolerant to other participants of the conflict. While other groups try to find more peaceful ways to fight for their goals. By analyzing different types of actions which take place in Moscow public spaces it can be said that muscovites appear mainly not to support massively initiatives which appeal to paternalistic attitudes - to requirements that someone must give something, to aggression and hate. But the movements, which use peaceful technologies and whose actions and strategy don’t stand on hate, who try to find compromises and call for actions but not only words, appear to be more effective, involve more people in there activities and more likely achieve the desired results. A smart mechanism of action, with a proposal to seek new solutions and to rethink the existing conditions, with proposal to look for ways of reconciliation, raise the desire for participation, support and active action. In the recent years there can be observed a tendency that some movements changed their policy from a violent to non-violent and constructive. That might require more input and effort into the activities, but at the same time causes the shift towards bigger effectiveness and more successfulness in achieving goals desired. Such movement stand on constructive goals, conscious participation, collaboration, raise of interest and personal involvement through providing information, increasing of education and supporting each other. They don’t only enlighten problems, but look for solutions to them.
-
Uncovering. The action of discovering something unknown or previously secret. The last 5 years were very rich in new public initiatives who aim to create new forms of exploring and living in the city. All these initiatives attract a big amount of followers and willingly collaborate with each other. )
1977 1979 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 UNCOVERING INITIATIVES
50 000 visitor s Moskultpr og 1000 participants in 4th Velonoch 1800 visitor s on Vinton Gray Cerf lecture 19 700 subscr ibers on facebook 3000 visitor s every weekend 350 unique user s per month 400 visitor s per event, 15 events 4000 visitor s per day, 60-70 events 5 conferences, 5 pr ojects 11 000 visitor s per month Pushkinsky museum Politechnichesky museum MSU open lectures
picnic Afisha ar t center “ W inzavod” design center “ F lacon” S tr elka summer pr ogr amme tv r ain the village ar t center “ Garage” openspace.r u T heor y & pr actice cityceleber ty.r u oktyabr skaya tolkuchka lavka T E D xVor obievy Gor y Melnikov B A R A r chN est
MMoMA
PEACE AND WAR IN PUBLIC SPACE
48
Conclusion Attitudes and actions related to migrational process in Moscow is a big bundle of contradictions, unrelated data and fears. The research of Fund Public Opinion showed the the highest level of tolerance towards muslims can be observed in Uzhnyi and Privolzhje regions of Russia where there is a biggest amount of muslim population living together with orthodox. This fact shows that the way for solving the cross-cultural conflict lays in the process of integration and tolerance from both sides. That leads to a conclusion, that there is a need in actions in Moscow public space with the aim to increase cross-cultural and inter-ethnic tolerance and in actions to help migrants to integrate into Moscow society. It also can be said that the most violent and ineffective initiatives in Moscow are those one dealing with politics - state power in general and migration policy. The ineffectiveness of these initiatives is for sure based above all on unwillingness of power to deal with problems they are informed by these initiatives. It can’t be any in-violent problem and conflict solving until both sides are ready to react to other’s arguments and to be engaged into a constructive dialog. For now state appear to be the most violent participant of the society, and that behavior turns Moscow public space into a war space, and if the tendency will not change it will remain like that and the violence will increase. Studying the initiatives whose activity is not that closely connected to state reaction and behavior shows that when people are dealing and collaborating without the state involvement and influence they succeed in achieving unity, compromises and desired results. According to society’s present condition, despite the need of the state’s reaction to society’s claims and will, there is a need in open sources for Moscow activism and in informational support for people willing to act in order to change something: in a platform for collaboration for common actions with reference to particular public spaces of the city (non only around ideas); in platform to collect public opinion about the necessary changes in the city, which would help to shift the city’s management from completely top-down model to a more bottom up one; in platform uniting different separate initiatives in order to exchange experience and help each other and the platform for creating and supporting non-violent movements.
Bibliography Afanasyev, Michael. “Russain elite: demand for new direction”. (Moscow: Fund Liberal Mission, 2008) Boym, Svetlana. "Common Places: Mythologies of Everyday Life in Russia". (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995) Gudkov L.D., Dubin D.V., Zorkaya N.A. “Post-Soviet Man and civil society.” Attachment to a magazine “Common book”. (Moscow: Moscow school of political researches, 2008) Harvey, David. “Contested Cities: Social Process and Spatial Form”, The City Reader. (London: 1996) Kutkovec, Tatiana, Klyamkin, Igor. “Normal people in in-normal country”. Research for “Scenarios for Russia 2”. Moscow: 2003 Parkinson, John. “Holistic Democracy and Phisical Public Soace”. British Journal of Political Science Conference. (London: British Academy, 8 June 2006) Fund “Public Opinion”. “Civil society. Indicators of civil engagement”. Sociological atlas. (Moscow: 2007) Analytical center of Yuri Levada “Levada Center”. “Public opinion 2009”. Yearbook. (Moscow: 2009)
50% of Moscow â&#x20AC;&#x201D; public space 11000 ha 9000 ha
green public space (parks, gardens, plazas, squares, boulevards, etc.) green zones in microrayons
12000 ha 9000 ha
yards non-yard residentail territories
8860 ha
streets (including sidewalks, roadsides, transportation hubs)
8600 ha
territories with public function (exhibitions, campuses, market places, etc.)
pre-Soviet development
workers settlements of 20s - 30s Stalinist development of 30s-50s microrayons
50ii ii
2.4 2.1 BOUNDARIES OF PUBLIC SPACE IN MOSCOW 2.1 by Sergey Shoshin BOUNDARIES Abstract
OF PUBLIC SPACE IN MOSCOW
Abstract Establishing clearly fixed territorial boundaries in Moscow’s public space became a key concept during Russia’s transition from a communist to a market economy. As new actors appeared in the city after the clearly big political, social and economical changes ofpublic the early 1990s, Moscow into Establishing fixed territorial boundaries in Moscow’s space became a keysplit concept differentRussia’s interesttransition areas. Establishing territorialto boundaries became an challenge for inurban during from a communist a market economy. Asimportant new actors appeared the planners. Reflecting this complexity interests became important in definingsplit public city after the big political, social and of economical changesespecially of the early 1990s, Moscow into space. Ininterest the socialist - and almost boundaries all other recent approaches – a clear divisionforinurban the different areas.approach Establishing territorial became an important challenge development of public was lacking; everything was vaguely categorized “residential planners. Reflecting thisspace complexity of interests became especially important in as defining public complexInconstruction,” without designating space as a approaches separate category. space. the socialist approach - and almostopen all other recent – a clear division in the development of public space was lacking; everything was vaguely categorized as “residential complex construction,” designating a separate category. This research consists ofwithout an introduction andopen threespace parts.as They are based on a detailed analysis of Moscow’s planning process and its cadastral system. The parts follow the logic of the current cadastral system. This of logic that, after the reconstruction of based land rights, land lotsanalysis that were This research consists an means introduction and three parts. They are on a detailed private or public were meant toand acquire historicalsystem. boundaries retro-active So, both of Moscow’s planning process its cadastral The (or parts follow theboundaries). logic of the current lands thatsystem. were developed Soviet that, timesafter andthe lands that were toof beland developed in the nearest cadastral This logicinmeans reconstruction rights, land lots that were future has to be stratified intoto private and public. This should be by implementing newly deprivate or public were meant acquire historical boundaries (or done retro-active boundaries). So, both signedthat boundaries; I coinedinthem re-active boundaries forwere Soviet and pro-active boundaries lands were developed Soviet times and lands that to lands, be developed in the nearest for thehas newly developed The research methods used for firstbyand the second newly chapter future to be stratifiedlands. into private and public. This should bethe done implementing deare multiple case studies, while forre-active the third boundaries chapter, I used regulation research and comparison. signed boundaries; I coined them for Soviet lands, and pro-active boundaries for the newly developed lands. The research methods used for the first and the second chapter are multiple case studies, while forofthe third boundaries chapter, I used regulation research and comparison. I found that all three mechanisms setting for urban territories (retro-active, proactive, and re-active) are currently in transition. They were established not long ago and they are sustainable. The mechanisms transition canofbesetting perceived as a possibility improve the mechanisms Inot found that all three boundaries for urbantoterritories (retro-active, pro-for setting and boundaries. is highly relevant,They as the development active, re-active)This are issue currently in transition. were establishedpath not that longMoscow ago and will theyfollow are is determined to The a great extentcan by the processesas that define andtointegrate space in thefor not sustainable. transition be perceived a possibility improvepublic the mechanisms urban fabric of the city. setting boundaries. This issue is highly relevant, as the development path that Moscow will follow is determined to a great extent by the processes that define and integrate public space in the urban fabric of the city. Introduction Introduction Until 1917, land surveying was based on the consolidation of land ownership, of its registration and its record. The threefold process of bringing order to land holdings, of defining its boundaries Introduction. and of delineating state and private territories started in the 16th century. After of theitsintroduction Until 1917, land surveying was based on the consolidation of land ownership, registration of the Notary Position in 1866 (part of ofof Alexander the Second’s Great Reforms), private land propand its record. The threefold process bringing order to land holdings, of defining its boundaries erty in tookstate its modern form.territories The use of streets, other public was reguand of Russia delineating and private started in squares and the 16th century. After theplaces introduction of latedNotary by public law, and the use ofofprivate property was regulated by the neighbor's (private) law the Position in 1866 (part of Alexander the Second’s Great Reforms), private land prop(Eduard Trutnev, Regulation of form. the City: Framework for Urban Development erty in Russia took its modern TheRegulatory use of streets, squares and other public placesUnder was reguConditions of the Property Market). But theproperty was Soviet Decrees on Land (1917) and Property (1918) lated by public law, and the use of private regulated by the neighbor's (private) law destroyed the whole cadastral system. current Framework cadastral system, which became necessary (Eduard Trutnev, Regulation of the City: The Regulatory for Urban Development Under after recentof property reconstruction andthe market changes, restore former (1918) order Conditions the Property Market). But Soviet Decreesproposed on Land to (1917) andthe Property (retro-active policy). order system. was, withThe some changes, extended intowhich the areas developed durdestroyed the wholeThis cadastral current cadastral system, became necessary ing the Soviet period reconstruction (re-active policy), by establishing new mechanisms future developafter recent property andand market changes, proposed to restoreforthe former order ment (pro-active policy). the research structure, all three processes (retro-active policy). This This orderapproach was, withdetermined some changes, extended into the as areas developed durhavethe different and hold different for contemporary Moscow. processes will ing Soviet problems period (re-active policy), andrelevance by establishing new mechanisms for All future developbe described in greater below. determined the research structure, as all three processes ment (pro-active policy).detail This approach have different problems and hold different relevance for contemporary Moscow. All processes will be described in greater detail below.
51
PUBLIC SPACE
PUBLIC SPACE
it the
w
cow,
strelka institute
5,5% of ofMoscow Moscow— pre-Soviet 5,5% - pre-soviet residential development
w — pre-Soviet residential development
torical
>
11000 ha 9000 ha
green public space (parks, gardens, plazas, squares, boulevards, etc.) green zones in microrayons
12000 ha 9000 ha
yards non-yard residentail territories
8860 ha
streets (including sidewalks, roadsides, transportation hubs)
8600 ha
territories with public function (exhibitions, campuses, market places, etc.)
pre-Soviet development
Retro-active boundaries
Retro
workers settlements of 20s - 30s Stalinist development of 30s-50s microrayons
In May 2011 construction in the city center stopped due to a new decree of mayor Sergey Sobyanin, the situation in this part of the city was stabilized. Sobyanin’s reform reinforced the influence shrinking industrial zones territories with strengthening public function of preservation policy over the development of historic land lot boundaries. The mainnewaim for the residential construction land cadastre is not to preserve but to reconstruct; it has a retro-active character. Pieces of land that were merged in the structure before, now re-acquire their old shape. When we compare the modern cadastre map of the city center with a map of the 19th century, we see that the historic boundaries are undoubtedly not only reconstructed within the limits of the Garden Ring (the central ring way around Moscow’s city center). This retro-active process is also applied to the development of historic areas in other parts of the city, but more sporadically. In the center, the whole system is reconstructed (however disturbed in such parts like New Arbat, Tverskaya Street, etc.).
In May 2 nin, the s of preser land cad that were modern boundar central ri velopme system i
In many respects, the order that exists in the center hardly deserves the name order. From time to time conflicts arise, primarily as a consequence of the chaotic privatization of the 90s and the beginning of the 00s, and as a consequence of the absence of laws for investment contracts written out under former Moscow mayor Luzhkov-period. For example, the right to develop Pushkin We decided to prohibit the Square was obtained by a Russian-Turkish company (data provided by group on the protection of construction in the historical Pushkin Square, Marina Ojiganova) that tries to develop a large shopping mall under the square. center of Moscow The company’s efforts were only possible because of the absence of clear legal boundaries to pri‘We decided to prohibit the construction in the historical center of Moscow’ vatization of public space. Some squares were unlawfully privatized, such as the Sivtcev Vrazhek square and the square at Hohlovsky side-street. Some new projects of the Moscow authorities raise doubts as well, directly opposing the stated concept of preservation. Moskomarchitektura, the government’s architectural bureau, is now considering to build underground parking space under a number of central squares: Lubyanskaya, Teatralnaya, Pushkinskaya, Tverskaya Zastava, and under some parts of the Boulevard ring, such as the Tverskoy, Nikitsky and Gogolevsky boulevards. (‘Rossiyskaya gazeta’, May 2011.) Certainly, the creation of additional parking spots is needed, but such large-scale construction can paralyze public life in the urban core. Besides, the reorganization zones in the center, as the new master plan proposes them, is currently unclear as S. Sobyanin, mayor of Moscow, 11.05.2011 the document is not finished yet.
In many to time c beginnin ten out u Square w Pushkin The com vatization square a raise dou the gove der a nu and und boulevar needed, reorganiz the docu
S. Sobyanin, mayor of Moscow,11.05.2011
BOUNDARIES OF OF PUBLIC SPACE IN BOUNDARIES MOSCOW BOUNDARIES PUBLIC SPACE IN MOSCOW OF PUBLIC SPACE IN MOSCOW
52 iv
Meanwhile, the government’s decisions Meanwhile, arethe influenced government’s by a group decisions of independent non-governare influenced by a group of independent non-governmental organizations, whose position mental strengthened organizations, whose over the position past twostrengthened years. In many over respects, the the past two years. In many respects, the growth of a social movement in the growth center of a of social Moscow is movement driven in the by personal center of initiatives of Moscow is driven groupsby personal initiatives of groups of intellectuals. They typically include actors, of intellectuals.architects They typically and people include actors, involved architects in political and life. The people involved in political life. The existence of such movements is existence difficult to of imagine in such movements is other parts difficult of theto city, where imagine inthe other parts composi-of the city, where the composition and structure of the population is tion and structure very different from of the population is the one that exists within very different from the Garden the one that exists within the Garden Ring. Nevertheless, some territories Ring. outside Nevertheless, of the capital’s some territories city center outside couldofsee thethe capital’s birth of city similar center could see the birth of similar movements, such as Izmaylovomovements, district, Tushino, such Strogino as Izmaylovo (datadistrict, provided Tushino, by the Strogino Public Coalition (data provided by the Public Coalition for Protection of Moscow, Roman for Protection Tkach). The ofcity‘s Moscow, public Roman spaceTkach). is not the Theonly priority of city‘s public space public is not the only priority of public organizations, but sometimes aorganizations, struggle for preservation but sometimes a of the struggle capital’s for historical preservation sites and of the thecapital’s historical sites and the borders of its gardens, parks and borders squares of its becomes gardens,a parks and consolidating squares force.becomes A sense a ofconsolidating belongforce. A sense of belonging to the urban space can bring ing to people the urban together. space can bring For instance, the people initiative together. groupFor ‘Morozovsky instance, the initiative group ‘Morozovsky was formed toplazas, return a Garden’ public park formed its citizens to return a after itpublic park was appropriated to its citizens by a comafter it was appropriated by a com11000 ha Garden’ gardens, plazas, squares, green boulevards, public space etc.) (parks, gardens, squares, boulevards,was etc.) to 9000 ha green zones in microrayons ns mercial organization in 2001 .After the mercial organization successful completion in 2001 .After the of this project, successful the completion activities of of thethis project, the activities of the 12000 ha yards 9000 ha group continued ries non-yard residentail territories to be focusedgroup continued on the rehabilitation and to be focused development of on the rehabilitation and public spaces.development of Other, public spaces. Other, ha streets s, roadsides, 8860 transportation hubs)(including sidewalks, roadsides, transportation hubs) similar, organizations include the similar, group organizations on the protection include of Khitrovka the group district, on the protection the group of on Khitrovka the district, the group on the 8600 ha territories ion (exhibitions, campuses, market places, with public etc.)function (exhibitions, campuses, market places, etc.) protection of Sivtcev Vrazhek, the protection group on of the Sivtcev protection Vrazhek, of the Central group on House the protection of Artists,of and thethe Central House of Artists, and the group on the protection of Pushkinskaya group on the Square. protection They of all Pushkinskaya arose primarily as Square. organizations working They all arose primarily as organizations working
ction
pre-Soviet development
Growing public activism Growing in the public center activism of Moscow in the center of Moscow workers settlements of 20s - 30s Stalinist development of 30s-50s microrayons
Public coalition on the protection of Moscow
Public coalition on the protection of Moscow
Archnadzor Group on the protection of Pushkinskaya square
shrinking industrial zones territories with strengthening public function new residential construction Tushino
Group on the protection of Rozhdestvenka str. Tushino
Archnadzor
Group on the protection of Pushkinskaya square Group on the protection of Rozhdestvenka str.
Fight Continues for Group on the protection of Kazenniy pereulok Downtown Garden Morozovsky sad Morozovsky sad A public garden in Izmaylovo downtown Moscow Izmaylovo that was closed off and guarded for the Baumanskaya Baumanskaya last six years hasdistrict GroupMoscow’ on the protection of Khitrovka district Group on the protection of Khitrovka Public organisation ‘Quiet partially reopened after a campaign by Sivtcev vrazhek local residents. Group on the protection of Kazenniy pereulok
Strogino
Strogino
Public organisation ‘Quiet Moscow’
Sivtcev vrazhek
Fight Continues for Downtown Garden A public garden in downtown Moscow that was closed off and guarded for the last six years has partially reopened after a campaign by local residents.
Group on the protection of Tretyakovka and Central House of Artists Group on the protection of Tretyakovka and Central House of Artists
Growing public activism in the center of Moscow
Growing public activism in the center of Moscow
The increasing role of public organizations The increasing in the rolecity of public planning organizations process encourages in the city public planning activity process encourages public activity in peripheral parts of Moscow. in Using peripheral the experience parts of Moscow. of the center Using can thegenerate experience a more of the effective center can generate a more effective planning approach, and it couldplanning lead to a approach, more serious and itattitude could lead to residents’ to a moreopinions .It serious attitude is importo residents’ opinions .It is important to reconsider the current policy tant toforreconsider the city center. the current Somepolicy revisions for the of taken city center. decisions, Some such revisions of taken decisions, such as reorganization zones that the asmaster reorganization plan assigned, zones that and the policies master arranging plan assigned, new construction, and policies arranging new construction, could better the vision for the city could center’s betterpublic the vision spaces, for the even citywhile center’s preserving public the spaces, plan’seven mainwhile preserving the plan’s main philosophy. philosophy.
53
PUBLIC SPACE
PUBLIC SPACE
>
strelka institute
11000 ha 9000 ha
22% of Moscow 22% of Moscow — soviet resid soviet residential green public space (parks,development gardens, plazas, squares, boulevards, etc.) green zones in microrayons
12000 ha 9000 ha
yards non-yard residentail territories
8860 ha
streets (including sidewalks, roadsides, transportation hubs)
8600 ha
territories with public function (exhibitions, campuses, market places, etc.)
— soviet residential development
pre-Soviet development
workers settlements of 20s - 30s Stalinist development of 30s-50s microrayons
Re-active boundaries
shrinking industrial zones territories with strengthening public function new residential construction
Re-ac
The main challenge when it comes to re-active boundaries, is to adapt microrayons to the conditions of the market economy. In terms of land use, adaptation means that the borders of public, private, and municipal land should be established in order to defuse growing tensions between various interest groups. The introduction of private land property has always been a problem in Moscow. Until recently, only the land under a building’s footprint could become the residents’ property. On the one hand, it is true that private land in its common meaning can damage the structure and permeability of the Soviet microrayons. Barbara Engel found that the expansion of usage rights beyond the boundaries of apartment blocks was a particularly alarming trend, given the rate at which community facilities were being passed into private hands (Barbara Engel, Public Space in the ‘Blue Cities of Russia’). Similar concerns were expressed by Russian architecture critic Grigory Revzin, who said that residents should not bear the burdens of ownership; they do not pay taxes over it and do not care about those areas. Often it is also a matter of income, not just self-consciousness, as the city and the country are awash with poor home owners. On the other hand, residents should have certain rights over the land in residential complexes. Otherwise, these territories could still be considered as no mans’ land, negatively influencing their quality and usage scenarios. Also, the absence of private ownership of the land means it rohibit could be used for new project developments, which often breaks the microrayons’ structure. This ritories. process is called ‘densification,’ because it squashes land lots often occupied by gardens and lic one ‘It is necessary to prohibit the assignment of playgrounds. Both landfrom scenarios are shown in the diagram. Each of them can lead to negative of the territories. Maximum - symbolic one meter the wall of the house. The - city land.’ results, thusrest creating demand for proper surveying and forming community land rights. 's land
The mai tions of private, various Moscow property structur of usage given th Public S tecture c they do come, n On the o Otherwi their qua It is necessary to prohibit could be the assignment of territories. process Maximum — symbolic one ‘It is necessary to proh playgrou meter from the wall of the territories. Maximum the wall of the house. results, house. Te rest is city's land
Moscow’s current surveying projects are conducted as municipal projects, with large planning institutions taking on state orders. This kind of planning has many disadvantages, mainly stemming from its indifference to local context and residents’ demands. It bluntly tries to fix all the mistakes of the transitional period, without giving thought to restructuring. There are two possible ways out of this: involving citizens in the surveying process, or organizing open competition to choose between different scenarios.The first was implied in 2010 in St. Petersburg where ecological nonprofit organization ‘ECOM’ developed a project on green territories of public use that were formed as a separate land lots in all the city. The project proposed that this type of territories should be
Moscow stitution from its of the tr out of th between profit or as a sep
,6.2009 06.2009
Luzhkov, mayor of Moscow, 06.2009 Y. Luzhkov, Y.mayor of Moscow, 06.2009
able fact main
reas ss. ded oject and to sable which
P or or nistra, and
er al, the ble eas d Manhe prove d.
tion
vi
Flaws of survey in Moscow
No red lines inside boundaries of microrayon
No possibility for division of superquarters
New construction follows former microrayon structure
Homogenous free space belonging to no one
BOUNDARIES OF PUBLIC SPACE IN MOSCOW BOUNDARIES OF PUBLIC SPACE IN MOSCOW
found in microrayons to reflect the real amount of green territories that are really used and usable because the official statistics of public greenery often shows quite optimistic ratio however in fact a lot of neglected area is always taken into account. This project involved local residents as main participants of the process so that the results were very precise. The first option was tried in St. Petersburg in 2010, when ecological non-profit organization ‘ECOM’ worked out a project for the development of green areas for public use. The green areas were formed as separate land lots all over the city. These land lots were given separate cadastral numbers and were separated from large amounts of other green strips in the microrayons. These other green strips are often of low quality and limited usability. However they are included in the official greenery registers, often falsely marked as being of good quality. The ECOM project proposed to base the housing blocks’ green areas on real data provided by local residents, and to discover the actual quality levels of the green areas. This way, the real amount of used and usable green areas would become clear. Local residents were the main participants of the process, which led to specified results. The second option was chosen by Perm’s city administration. They organized an open competition for their large-scale urban reconstruction plan. The winning strategy came from KCAP architects and planners, and included rules for housing block development as well as rules for public space planning. This approach was used for municipal surveying projects developed for the housing blocks on the Kirovsky and Sverdlovsky districts (source: website of Perm administration http://www.gorodperm.ru/). The developed rules proposed big changes for microrayons, and were part of a large-scale redevelopment strategy. After analyzing the surveying projects for microrayon development, it turned out that the better projects are those projects that change the old structure completely. The public-private capitalist spatial structure is very difficult to tailor to the specific structure of the microrayon. But still, the construction of microrayons continued even after it became evident that they were not suitable for the new conditions. The share of microrayons as part of the total amount of residential areas developed after 1995 stood at 18.9% in 2008. In comparison, their share in the post-war and Khrushev-type housing (1946-1970) is 34.2% (Innovative Mechanisms of Housing Operation Management, Rybalchenko Michail). Moscow should move on to new types of construction. At the same time, new Assignment community-based regulations should be adopted the microrayons to improve of land: demand forforsurvey the quality of its public spaces. Simultaneously, the land rights of citizens should be extended.
bou
No
Ne form
Ho b
private scenario public land
Small parts of yards given to rsidents
54
transitional state
appropriated land
Diagrams taken from KCAP, Perm masterplan, appendix C, Rules of quarter construction
city land scenario public land
Public space Yards Private and closed land lots
Assignment of land: demand for survey
unfair surveying
‘densification’
S
55
PUBLIC SPACE
PUBLIC PUBLIC SPACESPACE
>
strelka institute
11000 ha 11000 hapublic green green space public (parks, space gardens, (parks, plazas, gardens, squares, plazas,boulevards, squares, boulevards, etc.) etc.) 9000 ha 9000 greenhazones green in microrayons zones in microrayons
uture — future development development
12% of Moscow 12% ofdevelopment Moscow — future deve future ha 8860 ha (including streets streets (including sidewalks,sidewalks, roadsides,roadsides, transportation transportation hubs) hubs)
12000 ha 12000 yardsha yards 9000 ha 9000 ha residentail non-yard non-yard residentail territories territories 8860
8600 ha 8600 ha territories territories with publicwith function public(exhibitions, function (exhibitions, campuses,campuses, market places, market etc.) places, etc.)
pre-Sovietpre-Soviet development development
workers settlements workers settlements of 20s - 30s of 20s - 30s Stalinist development Stalinist development of 30s-50sof 30s-50s microrayons microrayons
shrinking industrial shrinking zones industrial zones territories territories with strengthening with strengthening public function public function new residential new residential construction construction
Pro-active Pro-active boundaries boundaries
Pro-a
The Moscow The Moscow municipal municipal government government startedstarted making making publicpublic land plots land available plots available for private for private con- construction. struction. A special A special state institution, state institution, the Institute the Institute for Preparation for Preparation Management Management for Territory for Territory De- Development, velopment, was created was created for thisforaim. thisThe aim.program The program plans plans the development the development of 12 to of 12 15 to thousand 15 thousand hectares, hectares, including including industrial industrial zones,zones, and storageand storageand infrastructural and infrastructural areas.areas. AboutAbout 12% of 12% the of the city’s territory city’s territory falls under falls under the plan, the but plan, almost but almost all of these all of these plots are plots currently are currently occupied occupied by proprieby proprietors and torstenants. and tenants.
The Mo struction velopme hectares city’s ter tors and
In order to In order to form a cohesive urban form a cohesive urban environment for environment for these these territories, territories, the city the should city should expropriexpropriate a portion ate a portion of the of property. the property. Only then Onlythey thenbecome they become suitable suitable for public for public use, for use, roads, for roads, infrastrucinfrastructure facilities and public ture facilities and public spaces. Building spaces. Building a new system of a new system of publicpublic spaces in spaces in these these areas is areas is the key the key city’s the urban city’s urban planning planning policy (Oleg Baevsky, policy (Oleg Baevsky, interview interview with ‘Achitecturniy with ‘Achitecturniy Vestnik’ Vestnik’ magazine, magazine, he cityof the of The key policy for the city 24/08/2010). Expropriation Expropriation of territory is of territory is quite well quite well established in established in Moscow; it Moscow; it has taken has taken the form theof form of public 24/08/2010). is the formation of public official trade between the city and citythe land and the land owner.owner. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, expropriation expropriation is mainly is mainly used when used when or t vastofficial trade between the spaces. However, for vast constructing linear linear objects (pipelines, objects (pipelines, powerpower lines, roads lines, roads etc.), but etc.), not but fornot public for public spaces. spaces. eere areconstructing private territories there are rming it. it. no mechanisms of forming it. The The underdeveloped mechanism of publicpublic servitudes negatively servitudes negatively affectsaffects the efficiency the efficiency of interaction of interaction ssions in in underdeveloped mechanism of This is related to omissions in between owners, owners, developers, and developers, and city officials. For city officials. For example, in example, in Moscow there Moscow there is no public is no public servi- servints. between the legal documents. ‘The key policy for the city is the formation of public spaces. However for vast privatestructures. Given territories there are no mechanisms of forming it. This tude for tude buildings, for buildings, nor are nor there are limitations to there limitations to the construction of the construction of underground underground structures. Given is related to the omissions in legal documents.’ this situation, building this situation, building an underground garage or an underground garage or a transport hub under a transport hub under a public a public space can space can appear appear without without any restrictions any restrictions for property objects. This for property objects. This can break the can break the established public established public realm.realm. For For example, example, the roof theofroof the of ‘Ogotny the ‘Ogotny Ryad’Ryad’ shopping shopping centercenter turnedturned out toout be part to beofpart the of building, the building, so so the city the has citytohas renttoit rent nowittonow make to make it public it public (Elena(Elena Chernenko, Chernenko, director director of Consultancy of Consultancy CenterCenter of of Academy Academy of National of National Economy Economy in an interview in an interview with ‘Kommersant’ with ‘Kommersant’ magazine, magazine, 25.05.2009). 25.05.2009). Furthermore, Furthermore, it is important to it is important to develop bonus develop bonus mechanisms mechanisms for new forconstruction .This new construction .This encourencourages the emergence of ages the emergence of new public new public spaces at spaces at the owner’s the owner’s territories; territories; for example, for example, if you ifbuild you abuild a publicpublic squaresquare next tonext a multi-storey to a multi-storey building, building, you can youadd cantwo addadditional two additional floors floors to yourtoskyscraper. your skyscraper. State O. Baevsky, vice director of State and Unitary Enterprise ‘Research and Experiences of Experiences of other cities, such other cities, such as New asYork Newand Hong York and Hong Kong,Kong, can becan useful be useful in thisinregard. These this regard. These City Project Institute of Moscow City Master Plan’, 08.2010 bonuses bonuses work better work better in dense in dense development. development. Moscow Moscow still has stillvast hasamounts vast amounts of freeofspace free space so so
arch and
O. Baevsky, vice director of State Unitary Enterprise ‘Research and Project Institute of Moscow City Master Plan’, 08.2010
In order ate a po ture faci of the c 24/08/2 official tr constru
The und between tude for this situ without example the city Academ Furtherm ages the public s Experien bonuses
BOUNDARIES OF PUBLIC SPACE IN BOUNDARIES MOSCOW OF PUBLIC SPACE IN MOSCOW
56
that developers are not limited by land scarcity. In Moscow there is already a similar mechanism, although it has not been developed very well. This mechanism works as follows: the owner of a territory gives part of his land to the city voluntarily. This in turn boosts the investment attractiveness of the land, as the floor area ratio increases, making it is easier to sell the property, because the project development becomes cheaper and it is more lucrative to develop a smaller piece of land (it can contain less infrastructural objects, because streets, electricity lines, etc. become the responsibility of the city). So this kind of regulation allows more dense urban development. However, the rules for given pieces of land often are OF quite diffuse. But in York for instance, the BOUNDARIES PUBLIC SPACE IN New MOSCOW rules that define the shape of land are very precise: plaza, sidewalk, arcade, gallery, street, etc. In New York they developed this legislation in the 60s, so they had the similar problems as Moscow now has. The experience of New York and Hong Kong can be included in this system in order to create a clearly defined typology of urban public spaces. The quality of such procedures benefits from clear typology. that developers are not limited by land scarcity. In Moscow there is already a similar mechanism, although it has not been developed very well. This mechanism works as follows: the owner of a Another important issue paradoxes thatboosts allow developers to ignore the territory gives part of his concerns land to thethe citylegislative voluntarily. This in turn the investment attractivecity’s needs. The choice of what to build on the land lot is arranged by the Land Code of ness of the land, as the floor area ratio increases, making it is easier to sell the property,instead because by the Town Planning Code. This provides the owner with loopholes: having made formal administhe project development becomes cheaper and it is more lucrative to develop a smaller piece of trative agreements, the owner may dispose of the land, or build whatever wants it. Thisthe fact, land (it can contain less infrastructural objects, because streets, electricity he lines, etc.on become coupled with insufficient regulations (PPZ)allows for many areas (theurban adoption of the PPZHowwas responsibility of the city). planning So this kind of regulation more dense development. postponed duefor togiven delays of theofmaster plan),are makes mechanism for planning and formation ever, the rules pieces land often quite the diffuse. But in New York for instance, the of Absence of planning restrictions for private land public realm all but clear and transparent. rules that define the shape of land are very precise: plaza, sidewalk, arcade, gallery, street, etc. In New York they developed this legislation in the 60s, so they had the similar problems as Moscow order set by Town Planning Code of Russia now has. The experience of New York and Hong Kong can be included in this system in order to private land lot planning project implementation of planning project create a clearly defined typology of urban public spaces. The quality of such procedures benefits from clear typology. Another important issue concerns the legislative paradoxes that allow developers to ignore the city’s needs. The choice of what to build on the land lot is arranged by the Land Code instead of PS with loopholes: having made formal adminisby the Town Planning Code. This provides the owner trative agreements, the owner may dispose of the land, or build whatever he wants on it. This fact, coupled with insufficient planning regulations (PPZ) for many areas (the adoption of the PPZ was alternative scenarios postponed due to delays of the master plan), makes the mechanism for planning and formation of private land lot unintended result Absence planning restrictions for private land public realm all but clear of and transparent. order set by Town Planning Code of Russia private land lot
planning projects are not obligatory according to Land Code of Russia project (art. 30 of Land Code planning of Russia, assignation of land)
implementation of planning project
process of ‘substantiation’ (art. 43, part 3 of Town Planning Code of Moscow) (allows agreements between authorities & land owners)
Absence of planning restrictions for private land
PS
alternative scenarios private land lot
unintended result
planning projects are not obligatory according to Land Code of Russia (art. 30 of Land Code of Russia, assignation of land) process of ‘substantiation’ (art. 43, part 3 of Town Planning Code of Moscow) (allows agreements between authorities & land owners)
Absence of planning restrictions for private land
>
57 strelka institute
PUBLIC SPACE
Conclusions In Soviet times, the vast majority of urban land lots covered by commercial, industrial, institutional uses, parks and other green zones, recreational areas, and all residential territories with large housing estates were publicly owned, just like streets, squares and land used for different public utilities. This brought the share of public land in the socialist city up to roughly 75% of the total urban area. In the capitalist West, the divide between public and private land is the opposite; the total amount of public space makes up about 25-30% of the total city area (Kiril Stanilov, Democracy, Markets and Public Space in the Transitional Societies of Central and Eastern Europe, University of Cincinnati). Moscow anno 2011, with its 50% of public ownership, is right in the middle of these two paradigms. If the city continues its capitalist development, the percentage will get Amount of public space in Moscow is in transition close to the ‘western’ 25% mark in the near future.
nd in Moscow
Soviet time
ases in Moscow 1993-2010
1
2002
2003
2004
Today
state non-public space
2005
2006
2007
75% 2008
2009
Tomorrow
non-public space rented land
2010
2010 Housing Code of Moscow was corrected to simplify the mechanism of land privatisation
non-public space rented land private land collective property
50%
2006 Conference “Forming the institute state public space of private ownership of land in Moscow”
25%
public space
Private land in Moscow
Amount of public
Code of Russian Federation rmally allowed to privatize land adjacent artment blocks by owners of flats, but it work in Moscow in fact 1993 1994
2006.06.27 Decree Of Moscow Government #431“On disposal of land lots in Moscow to private hands” that is assotiated with *by estimationis of in Kiril transition Stanilov, space in Moscow establishment ofUniversity property rights in land of Cincinnati, data for Soviet cities
1995
1996
1997
1994.09.26 Mayor Yuri Luzhkov signed a decree on rent of state land lots in Moscow
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
By companies
2007
2008
2009
2010
2010 Housing Code of Moscow was corrected to simplify the mechanism of land privatisation 2006 Conference “Forming the institute of private ownership of land in Moscow”
1998 Start of sales of state land lots by auctions in Moscow 1998 1st Housing Code of Moscow that established quite limited rights of proprietors
2011
Number of land purchases in Moscow 1993–2010
y of “Red October” factory
*by estimation of Kiril Stanilov, University of Cincinnati, data for European cities
Number of land purchases in Moscow 1993-2010
Total amount
1993 Constitution of Russia established property rights in land, but this law was ignored in Moscow
**by estimation of NIIPI Genplan
public space
2001 Land Code of Russian Federation that formally allowed to privatize land adjacent to appartment blocks by owners of flats, but it didn’t work in Moscow in fact
2006.06.27 Decree Of Moscow Government #431“On disposal of land lots in Moscow to private hands” that is assotiated with establishment of property rights in land
Total amount
By companies
An upward trend in privatization due to drastically increased land taxes. McDonald’s - one of the first companies to privatize land
The main challenge for boundary delimitation in general is to determine the amount and the quality of those areas of the public space that is to be transferred. This is problematic in all three vectors of the development process: preservation, restructuring of Soviet public spaces, and future planning. Or, using my research terminology, in all three processes of boundary delimitation: retroactive, re-active, and pro-active.
2003
2008
2011
of territory of “Red October” factory upward trend privatization dueby to drastically Setting retro-active boundaries Privatization in Moscow’s city center can and An should be ininfluenced public increased land taxes. McDonald’s - one of the first companiesatomaturity privatize landthat allows them organizations. The network of activists and protest groups is reaching to partake in the development of the public realm. The right strategy is to develop a model of effective collaboration between them and the government, and to extend this network to other parts of Moscow to form a strong organization of communities.
90 year old Tamara Blizinskaya became the 1st land owner in Moscow after the long process of privatization of inherited land lot in Kosino
In setting re-active boundaries for the lands developed during Soviet times, it is important to redefine the notion of collective space. It is obvious that the socialist spatial model should be revised to correspond to current conditions. In order to up the quality of public space in microrayons, part of the public space should become private. This would create a feeling of responsibility among citizens that is now absent. To prevent this space from being appropriated, additional communitybased regulation is required. In other words, rights and responsibilities of citizens over land should
BOUNDARIES OF PUBLIC SPACE IN MOSCOW BOUNDARIES OF PUBLIC SPACE IN MOSCOW
58
grow. The capital’s current surveying practice has certain flaws and is not suitable for long term planning. The capital can learn from the experience of other Russian cities in this regard. In setting pro-active boundaries for future development, the most important issue is to streamline newly created public spaces, and to establish a common language between public authorities and developers. Legislative ambiguities should be tackled, such as the one between the Land Code and the Town Planning Code, and planning regulations and incentives, such as various types of servitudes and bonuses, should be developed. The experiences of large cities abroad could come in handy in this regard.
Glossary Territories of public use — territories of social service objects, day- care facilities, schools, sports and communal facilities, car parks, territories of planted land (gardens, parks, boulevards, etc.), streets, squares, passages. BOUNDARIES OF PUBLIC SPACE IN MOSCOW Planning projects — documentsBOUNDARIES that set borders of territories, land for customers, OF PUBLIC SPACEallocates IN MOSCOW define scope and character of development, etc. BOUNDARIES OF PUBLIC SPACE IN MOSCOW Survey projects — documents that set borders different territories. Can be included in planBOUNDARIES OFofPUBLIC SPACE IN MOSCOW ning projects. Public servitude — right of limited use of someone’s land that is set by local or city authorities. grow. The capital’s current surveying practice has certain flaws and is not suitable for long term planning. capital can learn from the experience of other Russian in this regard. grow. TheThe capital’s current surveying practice has certain flaws and iscities not suitable for long term Bibliography grow. TheThe capital’s current surveying practice has certain flaws and iscities not suitable for long term planning. capital can learn from the experience of other Russian in this regard. In setting boundaries for future development, the most important is streamline planning. The capital can learn from the experience of other Russian inissue this regard. grow. Thepro-active capital’s current surveying practice has certain flaws and iscities not suitable fortolong term newly created public spaces, establish a common language between public and Jillsetting Robinson. The post-Soviet city: identity and community development (2009) planning. The capital can learnand from the experience of other Russian cities in this regard. In pro-active boundaries fortofuture development, the most important issue is authorities to streamline developers. Legislative ambiguities be The tackled, such as the one between the Land Codeand Sasha Tsenkova, Zorica NedovicBudic. urban mosaic ofimportant post-Socialist Europe (PhysicaIn setting pro-active boundaries fortoshould future development, the most issue is authorities to streamline newly created public spaces, and establish a common language between public and the Town Planning Code, and and planning regulations and incentives, such as various types ofand Verlag, 2006) newly created publicboundaries spaces, establish a common language between public In setting pro-active forto future development, the most issue is authorities to streamline developers. Legislative ambiguities should be tackled, such as theimportant one between the Land Code servitudes and bonuses, should beto developed. The experiences of one large cities abroad could come Russian analytical digest 64, Land reform developers. Legislative ambiguities should be tackled, such as the between theauthorities Land Code newly created public spaces, and establish a(2009) common language between public and the Town Planning Code, and planning regulations and incentives, such as various types ofand in handy in this regard. Russian analytical digest 77, Institutions (2009) and the Town Planning Code, and regulations and incentives, asabroad various types of developers. Legislative ambiguities should be tackled, such as the between the Land Code servitudes and bonuses, should beplanning developed. The experiences of one largesuch cities could come Russian analytical digest 85, Urban planning (2009) servitudes and bonuses, should beplanning developed. The experiences of largesuch cities and the Town Code, and regulations and incentives, asabroad variouscould typescome of in handy in thisPlanning regard. Wisa Majamaa. The 4P should in urbanbedevelopment, based on public-private-people partnership (Helin handy inand this bonuses, regard. servitudes developed. The experiences of large cities abroad could come sinki technology university, 2008) Glossary in handy in this regard. State report 'On state and use of land in Russia' Glossary Federal land service (2008)of social service objects, day- care facilities, schools, Territories of cadastre public use — territories Glossary Moscow 1_01_99, urban sports andnormatives communal facilities, car parks, territories of planted land (gardens, parks,schools, boulevards, Glossary Territories of public use — territories ofplanning social service objects, daycare facilities, Moscow normatives 1_02_02, design of public space etc.), streets, squares, passages. Territories of public use — territories of social service objects, daycare facilities, sports and communal facilities, car parks, territories of planted land (gardens, parks,schools, boulevards, Eduard Trutnev. Regulation thethat city,set regulatory framework for urban development under condiPlanning projects —use documents borders of allocates land for customers, sports and communal facilities, car parks, territories ofterritories, planted land (gardens, parks, boulevards, Territories ofsquares, public — of territories of social service objects, daycare facilities, schools, etc.), streets, passages. tions of theprojects property market (The Institute urban of economics, 2008) define scope and character of development, etc. etc.), streets, squares, passages. sports and communal facilities, car parks, territories ofterritories, planted land (gardens, boulevards, Planning — documents that setfor borders allocates landparks, for customers, Townstreets, Planning Code of Moscow Survey projects —— documents that setset borders different territories. Can be for included in planPlanning projects documents that borders territories, allocates land customers, etc.), squares, passages. define scope and character of development, etc. of of Town Planning Code of Russian Federation ning projects. define scope and character of development, etc. Planning projects — documents that set borders of territories, allocates land for customers, Survey projects — documents that set borders of different territories. Can be included in planLandprojects. Code of Russian Public servitude — documents rightFederation ofoflimited someone’s land that is set byCan local city authorities. define scope and character development, etc. of different Survey projects — thatuse setof borders territories. beorincluded in planning Transforming the— strategic masterplan (KCAP architects and planners, 2009) Survey projects documents thatuse setof borders of different territories. be in planning projects. Public servitude —city, rightPerm of limited someone’s land that is set byCan local orincluded city authorities. Luchezar Boyadjiev. Communal (and/or public andispersonal) (Institute Contemponing projects. Public servitude — right of limitedand useprivate of someone’s land that set by local or city of authorities. rary Art,servitude Sofia, 2004) Bibliography Public — right of limited use of someone’s land that is set by local or city authorities. Angela Harutyunyan, Kathrin Horschelmann, Malcolm Miles. Public spheres after socialism Bibliography (Intellect books,The 2009) Jill Robinson. post-Soviet city: identity and community development (2009) Bibliography W.L.Luk. Privately public space in Hong New York: the urban spatial influSasha Tsenkova, Zorica NedovicBudic. TheKong urbanand mosaic of post-Socialist Europe (PhysicaBibliography Jill Robinson. Theowned post-Soviet city: identity and community development (2009)and ence of2006) the policy of architecture, Hong Verlag, Jill Robinson. The(School post-Soviet city: identity and community development (2009)Europe (PhysicaSasha Tsenkova, Zorica NedovicBudic. TheKong, urban2009) mosaic of post-Socialist Grigory Sternik, Michail Evolution of quality of housing in transitional economies, Russian analytical digestChernykh. 64, Land reform (2009) Sasha Tsenkova, Zorica NedovicBudic. The urban mosaic of post-Socialist (PhysicaJill Robinson. The post-Soviet city: identity and community development (2009)Europe Verlag, 2006) report (2002) 77, Land Institutions Verlag, 2006) Sasha Tsenkova, Budic. The urban mosaic of post-Socialist Europe (PhysicaRussian analyticalZorica digestNedovic64, reform(2009) (2009) Michail2006) Rybalchenko. Innovative mechanisms of(2009) management of housing operating (2008) 85, Land Urban planning Russian analytical digest 64, reform (2009) Verlag, 77, Institutions (2009) Wisa Majamaa. Thedigest 4P in urban development, based 77, Urban Institutions (2009) 64, Land reform (2009) Russian analytical 85, planning (2009)on public-private-people partnership (Helsinki technology university, 85, Institutions Urban planning (2009)on public-private-people partnership (HelRussian analytical 77, (2009) Wisa Majamaa. Thedigest 4P in2008) urban development, based Statetechnology report 'Onuniversity, state use of land in Russia' Wisa Majamaa. The 4Pand in2008) urban development, based Russian analytical digest 85, Urban planning (2009)on public-private-people partnership (Helsinki Federal land 'On cadastre service sinki technology university, Wisa Majamaa. The 4Pand in2008) urban development, based on public-private-people partnership (HelState report state use(2008) of land in Russia'
59
PUBLIC SPACE
Bibliography Boyadjiev, Luchezar “Communal and private (and/or public and personal)” (Institute of Contempo-rary Art, Sofia, 2004) Harutyunyan, Angela and Horschelmann, Kathrin and Miles, Malcolm. “Public spheres after socialism” (Intellect books, 2009) Luk W.L. “Privately owned public space in Hong Kong and New York: the urban and spatial influence of the policy” (School of architecture, Hong Kong, 2009) Majamaa, Wisa. “The 4P in urban development, based on public-private-people partnership” (Hel-sinki technology university, 2008) Robinson, Jill. “The post-Soviet city: identity and community development” (2009) Rybalchenko, Michail. “Innovative mechanisms of management of housing operating” (2008) Sternik, Grigory and Chernykh, Michail. “Evolution of quality of housing in transitional economies, report” (2002) Trutnev, Eduard. “Regulation of the city, regulatory framework for urban development under condi-tions of the property market “(The Institute for urban economics, 2008) Tsenkova, Sasha and Nedovic- Budic, Zorica. “The urban mosaic of post-Socialist Europe” (Physica- Verlag, 2006)
Land Code of Russian Federation Moscow normatives 1_01_99, urban planning Moscow normatives 1_02_02, design of public space Russian analytical digest 64, Land reform (2009) Russian analytical digest 77, Institutions (2009) Russian analytical digest 85, Urban planning (2009) State report 'On state and use of land in Russia' Federal land cadastre service (2008) Town Planning Code of Moscow Town Planning Code of Russian Federation Transforming the city, Perm strategic masterplan (KCAP architects and planners, 2009)
1923 masterplan by Shusev and Zholtovskii "New Moscow"
62
2.5 MOSCOW LANDSCAPE PLANNING STRATEGY by Maria Gulieva
"To Grow Green Wedges Back" Nowadays, in spite of rapid development of internet and modern technologies recreational areas within the city remain necessary and ever popular public spaces. According to poll results the amount of greenery is one of the key factor forming people's perception of city public area. Also, landscape system is crucial for city functioning as it defines ecological and sanitary norms of the city environment. It is especially true for the current period of ecological problems. Currently there are two main problems in the key parts of Moscow landscape strategy, which are the following: -- inaccessibility of Moscow embankments - mainly at the central and South-Eastern part of the city, as well as the lack of walking areas along the riverbanks at the central part of the city - over 35% of Moscow embankments out of 180km of Moscow embankment total length are currently being blocked by industrial areas. Additionally, the rapid increase in traffic intensity of recent years made substantial shift in the city spaces perception. Consequently, walking routes along the roads that constitute 92% of the embankment length within the Garden Ring could not be perceived as city recreational area and thus is ineffectively used. -- lack of green areas at the central part of the city. Moscow is considered to be one of the most green cities among the World metropolises due to the index of green areas per person which is calculated with a sum of all Moscow green areas including large parklands at the city borders. However, the amount of greenery per person in the central part of Moscow is 4.8m2, whereas 8m2 is considered as minimum by the World Health Organization. At the state of transitions Moscow is currently undergoing 80% of industrial territories are being removed from the city center. It would potentially open up 35% of the city embankments and bring the opportunity of new parks creation. Therefore, there is a high demand in introducing a coordinated multidisciplinary Moscow Landscape Strategy, before the former industrial territories are being built up. Lack of linear parks in the center of the city and inaccessibility of central Moscow embankments are acknowledged to be problematic issues both by professional architectural community as well as by general public. During the recent years several concepts were made at a subject of Moscow river embankment territories transformation as well as it is formulated as a key point in the 2010 masterplan strategy. Numerous projects of the kind were recently realized in Europe proving the question to be crucial for many other cities. Research aims to explore what Moscow Green Wedges 2011 Strategy should comprise of in the current period of market economy in terms of architectural and urban planning vision, transport regulations, management, as well as land use and land survey mechanisms. Work contents: -- Moscow Landscape Planning Strategies of the XX-th century studied through Moscow masterplans -- Current state of Moscow parks and embankments system, existing visionary concepts and 2010 masterplan Landscape Strategy -- Moscow Landscape Planning Strategy 2011
63
PUBLIC SPACE
MOSCOW LANDSCAPE PLANNING STRATEGY
64
Historical analysis 80% of Moscow territories were formed during the XX-th century. Over 60% of the present Moscow territory are being built up with microrayons as the result of 160% implementation of 1960-s mass housing strategy. History of Moscow from 1920-s to the Present could be divided into four historical periods: period of Russian Avant-garde (1920-1935), Stalinistic period of representation (1935-1954), Post- Stalinistic period of " struggle with architectural excesses" (1954-1989) and the current Post-Perestroika period of transition to market economy (1989 - Present). Each of these periods was characterized by different political ideology which affected architectural visions of the city and defined Moscow architectural portrait of nowadays. The October Revolution consequence of destroying property right resulted in a specific centralized governmental planning mechanism characteristic to entire Soviet Period. Planning process became less of a regulative whereas more of a visionary discipline. During the Russian avant-garde period which followed the October Revolution key political idea of the time could have been formulated as collective good. The first Soviet masterplan was "New Moscow" plan made in 1923 by A. Shusev. At the base of it was the idea of future development of Moscow as a garden city. This masterplan was followed by the "Greater Moscow" masterplan made by Shestakov, where the future Moscow was envisioned as an urban agglomeration occupying the territory which exceeds the present size of Moscow. However, the masterplans of the 1920-s were not implemented into reality as the garden city concept they were referring to was considered unable to answer the demands of the time. Therefore, international contest for Moscow masterplan was held at the end of the 1920-s. Based on the contest results a group of Soviet architects started developing Moscow planning strategies. These strategies partly became implemented at the beginning of the 1930-s. In 1935 the masterplan by Semenov and Chernishov was accepted. At the base of it was put the idea of a centralized ideal Sun city, which should form a new representative image of Moscow as a capital of the New Soviet Country. The spatious organization of the city was defined by hierarchy from the center to periphery. After the death of Stalin in 1953 and the decree of "architectural excesses struggle" of 1954 started the period of industrialization in the Soviet architecture started. It was characterized by relative openness towards Western culture and the idea of ecological city as the central principle for planning. The vision of ecological city was put at the base of 1971 masterplan made by M. Posokhin. According to this masterplan Moscow was divided into several zones organised around zone public centres and connected with each other by green areas. Whereas the 1989 masterplan was in many ways based on the ideas of the preceding period, the masterplan of 1995-2005, which was called the "masterplan of opportunities" formulated the principle of getting maximum profits out of the city territory, which resulted in unpredictability of Moscow architectural layout. The masterplan which was accepted in 2010 is called the "masterplan of necessities" . It aims to resolve the problems initiated by the preceding period of radical shifts.
65
PUBLIC SPACE
1923 masterplan by Shusev and Zholtovskii "New Moscow"
1935 masterplan by Semenov and Cherniishov:
1923 masterplan by Posokhin
2010 masterplan "of nessssities" by Kuzmin
MOSCOW LANDSCAPE PLANNING STRATEGY
66
Moscow Greenery Planning Strategy key idea remained consistent throughout the XX-th century: to create Green Belt around Moscow connected to the center of the city by Green Wedges in a way that landscape areas form a permeable structure through the city fabrics. " to encircle (Moscow) by a 2 verst width circle of greenery, meanwhile, using the existing voids, cemetries, private and public gardens and boulevards - to cut in the direction of the city center several green wedges in order to "enhealth" the city center". (Shusev A, "New Moscow", 1923) " To create forest park protective green circle at the radius of 10 km, which should be comprised of evenly situated forest massives...To connect these green massives with the city center ...” (SNK and CC VKP(b) resolution of 10 July 1935) " ...the unity is achieved by elaboration of already formed star-like city plan construction and of development of the system of green wedges penetrating deeply into urban fabrics...” (Posokhin M, ”Construction and Architecture” 1971, #3) " ...recreation of connectivity of “green wedges” of the city at the basis of reabilitation of small rivers system and developing of built-up territories green area” (masterplan 2010 territories planning, 3.2.9)
Moscow Rivers Embankment current state was shaped in different historical periods Industrial areas situated along the riverbanks mainly in the South - Eastern part of the city were formed during the period from the foundation of the city to the beginning of the XX-th century, when the river surface was considered one of the main transport routes. "The embankments are served by railroads and are built up with regular rows of warehouses with automatic cranes" (Shusev A, "New Moscow", "Red Niva", Moscow 1923)
Central granite embankments of Moskva and partly Jauza rivers were designed with traffic roads going along the riverfront - it was the implementation of the idea formulated in 1935 masterplan. However at the beginning it was still possible to use embankments as walking areas as the traffic along the roads was not highly intensive. Nowadays, however, due to the rapid increase of recent years in the traffic intensity, Moscow central embankments could not be considered city recreational areas. " To transform Moskva river embankments into the main traffic routes of the city altogether with lining of the riversides with granite and creation of wide transport routes with transit traffic all along them" (SNK and CC VKP(b) resolution of 10 July 1935)
During the Post-Stalinistic period of shift towards modernism, the focus in Moscow planning strategy was put mainly on construction of new housing areas. The embankments in the newly built neighbourhoods were designed as recreational areas which, due to the periphery sites location were used mainly by local residents. "...into the zone center should be included a wide boulevard along the Moskva river at the area of Pechatniki and the neighbouring public buildings" (Posokhin M, ”Construction and Architecture” 1971, #3)
In the Post-Perestroika newly built areas the vision of the preceding period of riverbank as a park area was followed.
67
PUBLIC SPACE
Maximum amount of parks that could be formed in Moscow at the place of industrial territories
- existing parks - industrial territories that might be transformed into new parks - areas built up during 1935-1954 - areas built up during 1954- 1989 (microrayons) -areas built up after 1989 - planned metro express lines - existing metro lines -planed metro lines -planned monorails lines
MOSCOW LANDSCAPE PLANNING STRATEGY
68
Moscow Landscape Planning Strategy 2011 Overall vision: To create green walking areas along Moscow rivers ( following the traditional Moscow Landscape Planning Key Idea of the XX-th century which is being present in the 2010 masterplan) Program aim: rather than focus on territorial zoning - to create a multildisciplinary program which would become a mechanism for generating working solutions in such co-related fields, as economy, urban design, land survey, sociology etc and to foster communication between all the involved parties
Program directions: 1. Project Management: - to identify all organizations responsible for planning transport, infrastructure and greenery at Moscow rivers and riverbanks and to propose a coordinated strategy (reference: urban planning management models of Copenhagen and London) "The whole economics of urban life is no longer an isolated piece of Real estate but a whole sequences of resources which move through sites: energy, water, communication, people, knowledge etc bindled into a larger aquisition" (David Barry, "Creative Cities" program) "...do small projects, but try to find big infrastructure in which you could connect those projects to do a bigger thing" (David Barry, "Creative Cities" program) "In traditional planning you always have traffic planners dealing with traffic, you had someone taking care of the green and the parks and someone doing the buildings.... in Copenhagen we now sit down once a month ... so we have people from traffic , we have people from parks, we have people from squares... and we discuss the new projects that are going to be implemented in Copenghagen so that everybody know what is the vision behind the project" (Kristian Villadsen , Gehl Architects)
2. Urban Design (Visionary Concept +Territory planning /Transport): - to classify Moscow embankments of different types and to form a visionary concept of riverbanks development including the greenery strategy for the surrounding areas - to identify key sites, that should be transformed first - to focus on possible transport schemes 3. Land Use and Land Survey: -to implement a legislative mechanism of motivation for land owners encouraging creation of parks and walking areas (reference: Chicago Riverwalk model) -to implement mechanisms of encouraging investments into large scale city public space programs (reference: Paris city embankments strategy)
Urban design. Visionary Concept +Territory planning/transport schemes: 1. Transport schemes: - to create floating walking areas at the expense of the river width (reference:"Moskva River in Moscow" contest) - to introduce congestion charge: (reference: Paris, Copenghagen) - to put existing transport routes underground (reference: Madrid) - to improve public transport of the area 2. Territory planning: -to introduce new functions to the adjacent territories by means of planning and survey projects
69
PUBLIC SPACE
Bibliography Dikanskii, M. “Building cities: their planning and beauty”, (Moscow, 1915) Semenov, V. “City for people”, (Moscow, 1913) Shusev, A. “New Moscow”, (Moscow, 1924) Posokhin, M. “Cities landscaping”, (Moscow, 1971)
Construction and architecture of Moscow #5-8, (Moscow, 1971), Masterplan of Moscow Territorial Planning, 2010 Master plan of Moscow city reconstruction”, (Moscow, 1935) “The strategic dialectical plan for Moscow article”, Project Russia #44, (Moscow, 2007) “Green River”, Project Russia #54 (Moscow, 2009) Project Russia #57 (Moscow, 2010)
Statue “Europe”, 400 m, project Zurab Tsereteli, 2010
Meters 400 Peter The Great statue, 98 m, Moscow Zurab Tsereteli, 1997
300
London Tower, 120 m, Olympic park Anish Capoor, 2012
L M 200
100
pic park
72
2.6 MOSCOW PUBLIC ART XXth Century by Daria Nuzhnaya
What is Moscow public art? Methodology As the method I found it essential to establish the frames of the term itself. The core of my research is data analyzing of the public art objects and activities both in Russian and European countries. I concentrated on comparison of the different historical periods in Moscow, analyzed leaps that happened in the installation of the memorials during the 20th century and found the prerequisites why this happened. Focusing on periods of transition from one historical period to another, changes in political and juridical system I worked on establishing the discussion issues and findings. Relevance The topic of public art in Moscow has been widely discussed for the past 15 years (1997 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the year of installation of the 98 meters tall Peter The Great statue in the city center). A huge conflict because of its installation produced great discourse about whether it should be standing in Moscow or it should be demolished. Conclusion The history of Moscow public art had his own different way of developing. But what is the stage public art in Moscow is standing now? Does the today's strategy in public art so different from strategies in Europe or USA? What are the tendencies and who are the contemporary artists in Russia?
Lenin, 100 m, project Merkurov, 1938
Palace of the Soviets, 400 m, project B. Iofan, 1930s
73
PUBLIC SPACE
Image caption
There are different interpretations of the term “Public art”. Some cultural critics say that not every piece of art displayed publicly can actually be treated as a form of public art. According to its original definition, PA is not random monuments that were installed in public spaces with regard to history or historical personalities. It is also not merely a statue or sculpture in a park. PA is a dialog. It is also an indicator of a city’s creativity. Art aims at communication between the city and its residents. It should be a provocation that inspires dialog between a person and art, calling forth ideas and reactions. Therefore, an individual’s reaction could be called a contemporary art piece. During my research, I understood that it is impossible to define art in Moscow’s public space as “Public art”, because this term usually means something more than a banal sculpture. There were no art movements, as there were in European countries in the late 60s, when artists went outside the museums to public spaces, to address city residents. This movement was a conscious step toward the appearance of new forms of activities in the city. People started to pass their free time
qualitatively – contemplating the art, talking about it and debating it. Art enabled people to explore the city in a different manner. Does this mean that public art should always be discussed and always create social activity and social debate? I’m sure that it does. Public art could have every form of appearance, any object or activity, both tangible and intangible embodiment, the main thing is – once it comes to the public space and people notice it, this form of public life immediately captures attention and becomes a topic for discussion. That is what happened with gigantic Peter the Great monument, the Sholokhov monument on the Boulevard Ring and many other art pieces in Moscow. These monuments have provoked many debates and conflicts – such as should they be installed to begin with - that they immediately created a discussion field, a “radar” for social attention, becoming hot topics. From this point in my research I will refer to every “art” piece or activity that was displayed or had occurred in a public space, be it a monument, a park sculpture or any forms of social art activity, as “Public art”.
From this point in my research I will refer to every “art” piece or activity that was displayed or had occurred in a public space, be it a monument, a park sculpture or any forms of social art activity, as “Public art”.
From left to right. Alexander Calder "La Grande Vitesse", Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1951 Pablo Picasso, Untitled, Chicago, 1967 Valie Export " Aus der Mappe der Hundigkeit", Vienna,1968 Altman, design for decoration of Palace Square for the 1st anniversary of the Revolution, Dvortsovaya Ploshchad, Saint-Petersburg, 1918 Alexander Brener, performance with Oleg Kulik "Wild dog", 1994 Monuments of Soviet Leaders, hall in Krasnopresnenskaya metro, 1935
"Peter The Great Sculpture created the conflict around itself and produce a public space in a form of public discussion." Boris Grois
MOSCOW PUBLIC ART
74
Public art Career
Richard Serra, Titled Arc, 1981
The oldest forms of art appeared in ancient times. Public art transformed through history, representing different forms of religion and authority. Then there was a transition process when art became independent from these aspects. This happened in Europe and the USA. In Europe in the 1960s, there was an art movement, when artists came from the museum halls to the city spaces – they started to exhibit art on the streets. This movement was initiated by such artists as Richard Serra, Henry Moore, Jean Tinguely, Niki Saint de Phalle etc. The sculptures were incorporated into the environment and, therefore, created a cultural identity for the place. This need for creative identification for a place and for a city itself appeared in the USA with such programs as the Art-in-Public-Places Program, commissioned by the National Endowment for the Arts. The first sculpture that appeared in Chicago that was not dedicated to historical personalities was a Picasso cubist sculpture. Once it appeared, there were a lot of proposals to replace it with a traditional statue. Another example was Alexander Calder’s “La Grande Vitesse” that immediately became an identity sign for the city of Grand Rapids. The logo of this sculpture was even printed on rubbish bins. The earlier period of public art is very
significant because of the artists, who tried to implement their projects by taking into account the site-specifics and scale. Performances initiated by artists in public spaces began taking place even earlier, starting with “dada” performances in Zurich during the First World War and continuing with Joseph Beuys and Valie Export performances after the Second World War. A bit later, in 1974 Russia, the well-known Buldozer exhibition took place. The intention of artists that organized this exhibition was to have an opportunity to exhibit their art and show it to the public. It ended unsuccessfully, but years later, the artists got the chance to exhibit their art at the Izmailovskiy pavilion. From the 1976, the group CD, a.k.a. “collective actions,” appeared. That was the start of Moscow conceptualist art. CD held performances outside of the city in suburban areas. The first of their attempts at independent exhibition and performances in public space in Moscow are very significant, because they emphasize the beginning of changes in society, in this case – the beginning of the end of the authoritarian political regime and appearance of democracy. The official art in Moscow of that time focused on the installation the propagandistic art pieces.
75
PUBLIC SPACE
Dzerjinskiy Demolished in 1991
Kirov 5 installed 2 demolished
Gertsen 4 installed demolished
Gagarin Kalinin 3 installed 6 installed 1 demolished
Karl Marx Lenin 5 installed 80 installed 3 demolished 18 demolished
Chaotic process of memorials installation. app number - unknown
1000
Frunze 7 installed
800
app. number of memorial installed: 800
600
400
200
1905
Lenin’s monumental Start of the “Leniniana” propaganda 1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Standing in public Demolished
LENIN
STALIN
Installation - demolishing process During the Soviet period in Moscow, propagandist ideology appears in every sign in the city. It started with the 1st Soviet National Commissars decree about monumental propaganda. The program had strict propagandistic censorship - it consisted of two parts: 1) Getting rid of old monuments (all signs of Tsarist times and Orthodox religious “iconoclasm”– to promote atheism); 2) New monument strategy. The list of monuments that should be installed in public space consisted of famous revolutionaries (Spartak, Brut, Gertsen), writers and poets (Lermontov, Pushkin, Gogol’), philosophers (Scovoroda, Mendeleev), artists, composers and actors. Therefore, there was a proposal to install 66 monuments dedicated to historical personalities, but only 33 were installed during the years of Lenin’s monumental propaganda in Moscow. About 7 monuments from the time of the Tsars were demolished. The monuments were installed randomly, ignoring site specifics. There were 4 monuments installed in the Tverskaya square alone. The city was covered in propaganda art pieces. Where did the idea of putting ideological art pieces everywhere in the city come from? There are records that Lenin talked with Lunacharskiy about the Moscow city space. He said: “Do you remember the Campanella’s Sun City? He wrote about the ideal socialist country and talking about that, in an ideal socialis city every street, every square, every space should be covered with
CHRUSHEV
BREJNEV
art. And the art pieces display history, lessons of nature and politics. We have to keep this lesson to introduce in to Moscow. Let’s call it – monumental propaganda”. Monumental propaganda consisted not only of monuments, but also visual art, mosaics, and memorial boards on buildings. In 1924, after Lenin’s death, there were huge debates about the installation of the monuments. It took practically two years to figure out whether there should be Lenin monuments in public spaces or not. Suddenly the process began – chaotically so. Lenin memorials were built and installed everywhere in the country. Every sculptor had to produce them. The he authorities had to stop put an end to it, mostly because the quality of the Lenin memorials was in most cases awful. Here, the process of demolishing and the creation of the control apparatus began. The decree from 1925 about the “installation of Lenin memorials” created a special body that would control the quality and the sculptors’ work, highlighting the start of the “Leniniana” – another period of Lenin memorial installation, which lasted for 60 years. During the Soviet period, approximately 81 Lenin monuments were installed. The new body controlled the list of future memorials. Persons who performed great services to the Soviets also had their memorials made and installed in public spaces. The process of installation was quite predictable, there were about 2-3 monuments put in each year.
ERA Timeline shows LUZHKOV the censorship from soviet perestroika
Before the 1918th there were 11 monuments installed. During the Lenin's monumental propaganda 7 monuments from Tsar time were demolished
During the Lenin's monumental propaganda 33 monuments were installed. 3 monuments from this program are still standing in public space During the 1918-1991 there were 389 monuments installed
76
MOSCOW PUBLIC ART
Period of monument installation 1720
1740
1760
1780
1800
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
Period of monument dedication 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
1800 1850
1900 1950
2000
Memory world map: Part of the world where a person (who has a monument in Moscow) lived.
Indira Gandi monument
Miguel de Cervantesi monument
Diagram caption: Connection between period of installation and period of monument dedication.
Ho She Min monument
Memory What kind of memory were people keeping? From the diagram it is clearly seen that during the 20th century, monuments were mostly installed in dedication to several periods: 1) 1812 - the Patriotic War against the French Invasion. 2) 1905 - The 1905 Revolution 3) 1917 - October Revolution 4) 1941-1945 - Great Patriotic War. A number of soldiers and partisans had the monuments dedicated to their military feats. From 1950 - the monuments were installed dedicated to great doctors, scientists, academics, writers and composers – those who contributed to the development of the Soviet Union. Monuments were dedicated not only to Soviet people, but also to foreign politicians, revolutionaries and writers from India, Nicaragua, Cuba, Georgia, etc. Also for the last 20 years monuments were installed in dedication to the
French president, European composers and writers who lived in the 18th-19th centuries. Art pieces in Moscow memorialized different cultures. It is clear why other communist countries that were friendly with the Soviet Union were represented. The intent behind monuments to Beethoven, Charles de Gaulle, etc. was perhaps different. After the Soviet Union’s collapse - there were monuments built in dedication to the Russian Tsars and historical personalities that lived before Soviets. That could be explained by the the course that Russian national identity took – by referencing the history of Russia in the Tsars’ time.
77
PUBLIC SPACE
Stage 1: Application stage Who can send the application? Anyone
Stage 2: Meeting Memorial committee meeting Stage 3: Final agreement
National budget Formation:
Final agreement with Moscow City Council, Cultural committee, Moscomarchitecture, Mayor
List of the proposals about the installation of the memorials in the city
Au t Ma o m a yo tic rd a ec cce isi on pt
ex a me min mo atio ria n c lc o om mm mi itt te ee ed ? es ici on ?
Private investments
~ 1 meeting per month ~ 10 application on the installation of memorials ~ 50% of application on the installation approved ~ 60 memorials installation per year Mechanics of application process and decision making system on public art.
Public art administration After the Soviet collapse and cancellation of the previous laws about public art, art pieces began to spring up everywhere in the city. Moscow was overcrowded with art of any kind. “Monument fever” began. Commercial organizations, private companies, political parties – everyone started to install something in public space. Monuments appeared unexpectedly. Here someone put in a monument dedicated to cheese, there - to a dog. The number of monuments that were put in during this period is in the thousands. Public protest against this chaotic process of installation reached its culmination in 1997 when the gigantic sculpture of Peter The Great appeared in the city. Therefore, in 1997 a new law was passed, establishing the rules for the process of applying to install a monument and a public body to oversee the process. The public body controlled the applications and chose what kind of monuments should be installed in a particular space . In 1998 the monuments committee started to work as a control body for art installation in the city. The first members’ board consisted of honored art-
ists and cultural critics such as Prigov, etc. The law is limited to the installation of public art only monuments dedicated to the historical personalities or events can be put in public space. Therefore, the process of chaotic installation still flourished. Many sculptures were installed despite the law and the committee, and many of the committee’s recommendations were ignored. Mayor Luzhkov had a specific taste for public art, he befriended sculptor Zurab Tsereteli, who started to install his art all over the city with the Mayor’s blessing despite the law. The numbers of monuments installed differ from one expert to another, and no one can say the exact number. The committee still worked on the selection process – deciding which monument should be put in the space, and which should not. They had approximately 12-15 applications for installation each month. 50% were usually accepted. The chaotic process of memorial installation has tapered off somewhat today, when compared with the period when the committee was first formed, but the mechanics and system are still the same.
1991-1996 - No law or control body for public art in Moscow. 13.10.1998 - Moscow City Law "About the procedure of installation the art pieces of the City Significance". 156 monuments preserved although not all of them are in charge of Moscow committee on Cultural Heritage 54 monuments are in charge of Moscow Committee on Cultural Heritage 46 monuments are in charge of State guarding
Total amount of monuments in public space in the world - 86 Total amount of monuments in public space in Moscow - 31 Productivity in public space in Moscow - 2 monuments per year
78
MOSCOW PUBLIC ART
E G A
IM
Tsoy wall, Stary Arbat, Moscow
Illegal and informal movements: 1974, Buldozer exhibition late 1980s - graffiti movement 1976-2010, "Collective actions" group. 123 performances 1990 - "Tcoi wall" 1994-1995, Oleg Kulik. 8 perfomances 1994-1995, A.D. Brener. 7 performances 2004, Art-group "Bombily" 2007-2010, Art-group "Voina"
The new form of street art, graffiti, appeared in the late 1980s. I consider that the most interesting example of it as a social phenomenon to be Tcoi’s Wall on Stary Arbat in Moscow. On the day when musician Victor Tsoi died, someone wrote an inscription on the wall – “Tcoi has died today”, and hours later, another inscription that said - “Tcoi is alive” appeared. This wall suddenly captured the attention of young people. It became a ritual and sacred place for Tsoi’s fans and after unsuccessful police attempts to disband those people, the wall suddenly became a place of interest for locals and tourists. That is a nice example of bottom-up social activity that gained the right to exist in the city. Another phenomenon that also can’t be ignored is the non-conformists art-groups and their performances in 1990s. Art-group Voina appeared in 2007 with a series of different, aggressive flash mobs that were aimed against the police and authoritarian
regime. Every performance of the group was aimed at starting a fight with the police - therefore, each time members ended up jailed. In 2010 the group won a prize in the Innovation Competition, the jury for this competition consisted of the most relevant artists and cultural critics. Moreover, well-known art-terrorist Banksy donated thousands of dollars to help the art-group to get out jail. This means that society is interested in these aggressive art attacks and encourages them with the prizes. People need the nonconformist activity. That is another indicator of the fact that society is still living and has opinions on subjects that are different from the authoritarian view. The art-groups of the last years have something in common - they play with prohibited topics in public spaces, engaging sex, violence, violence against the police, nationalism, etc. They have a strong antisocial message that is aimed against the political regime and police.
79
PUBLIC SPACE
Left: NYC Waterfalls Right: Peter the Great statue
NYC Waterfalls costs $15,5 million. It is the most expensive public arts project since Christo and Jeanne-Claude's installation of The Gates in Central Park Temporality. The waterfalls officially began flowing on June 26, 2008. They ran until October 13, 2008. Olafur Elliason: "Temporality was one of a key topics that came back to me all the time, rather than looking at the city and space as something been timeless, the water will introduce temporal qualities which in many ways will amplify sensitive idea."
Zurab Tsereteli : "The huge wave comes from the water, the wave-pedestal, the big column stands on it. Bronze column decorated with 16 rostrums – foreparts of the ship. The Tsar itself stands on his famous boat “Saint Peter”– his height is 19 meters, he wears a roman legionary’s armour."
NYC Waterfalls and Peter The Great statue While we agreed that public art should produce debates and create a field of discussion around itself, let’s have a look at two significant examples from Russia and USA: NYC Waterfalls and Peter The Great statue in Moscow. These two examples are the most expensive art pieces. It is clearly seen that the form of the art is different, but do these pieces have something in common? Size and scale. It is hard to ignore the art pieces, because of its scale, size and central location. So, is it a world tendency to create the art piece that is hard to ignore because of its size and central location? Artist success. Contemporary artist in a modern world has lots of clients and orders. Sometimes the artist looks like a simple businessman who trying to find investments for his new project. While in the original definition public art is a tool to improve quality of the space by taking into account different factors such as “site-specific”, history of the place, necessity to create new legend and improve the “aura” of the place, public art today became a tool of opinion manipulation, a cause of conflicts and hard debates. And how can we call the public art an indicator of democratization in the modern world, while in many cases the decision of its installation depends on a will of certain persons.
Installation of the Peter The Great costs $16,5 million. The idea of demolishing the Peter-the-Great monument has had a lot of discussion with a new leap in the end of 2010 because of a new mayor taking the office.
MOSCOW PUBLIC ART
Bibliography Cooke, Catherine “Russian Avant-Garde: Theories of Art, Architecture and the City” Degot', Ekaterina “Russian art of the XX century” Harding, David and Büchler, Pavel, "Decadent: public art : contentious term and contested practice" Kipphoff, Karen “The politics of monuments” Kojevnikov, R. “Sculptural monuments of Moscow”, (1983) Kwon, Miwon "Public Art and Urban Identities" Moleva, M. M. “The history of new Moscow or who this monument is dedicate to?” Soviet monumental art, archives, materials and documents, volume 1: 1924-1927 Soviet monumental art, archives, materials and documents, volume 2: 1927-1932 Petrov, Sergey “The list of memorials that was installed in Moscow 1779 - 2001”, (2001)
Art-group “Voina” – http://free-voina.org/ Art-group “Voina” - http://plucer.livejournal.com/tag/группа%20война http://www.consultant.ru/ Juridical sources for political decrees
80
82
2.7 CROWDSOURCED MOSCOW 2012 A Public Space Game by Andrei Goncharov
What if real public space could be managed by citizen online? The game design is based on analysis of problems of public space, found throughout the research. Existing examples of participatory urban planning games from around the world have been collected and examined. Case studies from colleagues' researches of public space were used to create scenarios for the game. It was also important to make the game attractive for all potential players and to encourage participation through rewarding experience. The lack of consideration of people's opinion led to a situation, where people donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t feel connected to the space they inhabit. The game shows a solution to this situation by giving every citizen a right to manage the public space they use. The game shows a case of direct management of the city by its inhabitants and the potential of online communication as a platform for decision-making and planning, free from limitations of physical space. Moscow has long suffered from the prevalence of top-down planning. In the absence of other democratic procedures, using internet and social networks might be the only chance for restarting collaboration in urban planning in Moscow.
83
PUBLIC SPACE
Why a game? During the research of public space in Moscow we have outlined the most prominent problems in the city space. Here are some quotes from the colleagues’ reports: — The responsibility for public space is unclear and spread
— Borders between private and public space in post-socialist city are unclear and indefinite
— Public space in Moscow is a battlefield of different social groups
Many of these problems deal with ineffectiveness and a lack of communication between different “stakeholders” of public space in the city. Government is not interested in knowing people's opinion and makes the public hearings very formal. Developers are driven by market economy and don't act in the interest of citizen. Citizens don't have time to study urban planning and they are often not very active about discussing city problems. Because of this ineffectiveness, many possibilities for development of public space stay latent — no new parks are being built, public art is still a a rarity, permeability of the city space leaves much to be desired. On the other hand, discussions on the internet are free from limitations inherent to those in physical space — they are less controlled and people are more willing to express themselves among others. The rise of social networks nowadays looks like a promising possibility to connect people. So what if real public space could be managed by citizen online?
Imagine a city without an urban planner, without a master plan, growing from the bottom up. A city, where people has become authors and stakeholders of the space they inhabit. It is a new management model for Moscow’s public space, where decisions are made in a transparent and obvious way through internet. Instead of a vertical model where decisions are brought from top to down, we propose a horizontal model where decisions are suggested, confirmed and vetoed by citizens. In this model the role of an urban planner is played by everyone. Every inhabitant of the city has the right to make a proposal. The game itself becomes a virtual battlefield for “stakeholders” of the public space, seeking for consensus.
Game description The game focuses on the process of changing public space in the city. Players compete through proposing various projects and negotiating over the contents of the public space. Success is determined by the degree of agreement players manage to achieve. The trick is in balancing the interests of the individuals and being attentive to the needs of people in the neighbourhood. These needs can also be guessed by using open data, which provides statistical information about the effectiveness of city's public space.
CROWDSOURCED MOSCOW 2012
84
Game rules Basics Players log into the game with their account from social networks, instantly knowing, who is playing the game among their friends. Each player is registered at a certain place in the city, which becomes his main playing field. He can participate in any place of the city, but the cost for him to play remotely would be higher than for the local residents. Upon visiting the game, player meets all sorts of current information and stats: the leaderboards, how many players are playing now, who is online among their friends, where are they playing, what are the “hot spots” at the moment. Tools Players have a dashboard with gaming tools they can use to play. Main group of tools is called “Projects” and it is a collection of proposals, which can be put on the map and proposed to the city. Each project has a foreseeable impact: it is possible to predict, how the characteristics of the neighborhood will change when the project will be in place. Other category of tools is about measuring the various parameters of the city, “reading the city”. The game engine might suggest a better place for a project, based on a given criteria: population density, quantity of similar projects around. Polls can be made to make a choice between competing projects. Points system Players in the game are rewarded for playing and for collaborating with others. Players receive a hundred points every day. These points can be spent on supporting projects, delegated to someone, or simply ignored — in this case they are lost. People can also have multiple votes — see Mechanism of delegation. Locality Players get notifications about new projects, which they can filter according to their preferences. Projects have different levels of influence on the city. For example, a statue on the central square would be important to all inhabitants of the city as it has a symbolic meaning. On the other hand, a small park on the periphery has a limited area of influence. Types of players There are different types of players in the game, defined by their behavior. Developers are characterized by prevalence of capital (i.e. points). Unlike in reality, their main role in the game becomes to predict and to support requests from the citizen, proposing popular projects. “Government” players are characterized by a large quantity of votes delegated by other players, which allows them to be representatives of others’ opinions. Artists and architects use their creativity to promote projects. Urban planners become consultants and agents of citizen. Mechanism of delegation Players can give their votes to other players, delegating the decisions to someone they trust. Delegations can be limited to a specific topic (e.g. only ecology-related matters) or to a specific area in the city. Delegation also takes a portion of points every day, and with a lot of delegates managing the expenses on delegation could become an important issue. Projects’ price When projects get proposed to the public, they become open for voting. The price of projects is proportional to the size of the project and the quantity of inhabitants around. For example, a project might need to gain 88 votes in the before the end of the day to become accepted. But how can anyone win, if each player on his own has so little power? By joining forces and gaining support from other people. In the game, the more people trust each other, the more influence they have. Smaller and temporary projects cost less, making it easier to change the city with small and nondestructive measures. Goals Everyone's goal is to propose as many successful projects as possible and to win points. Throughout the game, everyone develops different skills to achieve that. Some players try to be representative of big social groups and to gain social weight ("Government"). "Developers" are accumulating savings to be able to propose large-scale projects.
85
PUBLIC SPACE
What would it be like, possible scenarios Public by design Changing public space with small measures This scenario is involved when large-scale redevelopment is too costly or unpopular and therefore is out of question. Here players have to use small measures to achieve the improvement they want. These small-scale actions are also attractive, because players are not so limited in the amount of design changes they can make daily, unlike the case of big projects. In this particular scenario, Manezhnaya square is in constant change on micro-scale and we observe, how these design tweaks change excludability, permeability and other parameters of the place. During the game, the player notices, that there is an expert in the government, who always makes decisions he agrees with. He decides to delegate his vote to that expert and gives him a portion of his daily points. But soon something goes wrong. The delegate begins to use the credit citizen gave him in his own interest and starts building commercial venues. This makes citizen angry and they take their votes back. In the end, the square is redeveloped by citizen into an open park. The process of negotiations is simplified and sped up in the game. By attracting the government, we actually encourage participatory attitude in all players. The relationship between different "stakeholders" of public space is made explicit, thus giving a chance to go further. The game also shows the effectiveness of small measures to solve urban problems.
CROWDSOURCED MOSCOW 2012
86
Courtyard revival Survey projects 2.0 The action takes place in a typical courtyard among panel houses in the outskirts of Moscow. By trying various configurations, people look for optimal surveying strategy, they are competing for the space between the houses by trying various projects. The more effectively they use the space, the more space they win. Effectiveness in this case is measured by the level of consent among players. Half of the courtyard is flooded with cars and there is no space for children playground. Car-owners propose to build a multi-level parking, but there is clearly no money for that. This buzz is being noticed by developers, who begin to sense an unrealized potential. They collaborate with urban planners and propose to build an additional first level around the courtyard, that could be rent by various facilities and bring money to build the compact parking. And also protect the courtyard from the street noise. The proposal is accepted and citizen begin to discuss, which facilities they actually need in their block. A citywide contest is open and a poll combined with revenue calculator brings the final list of facilities â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a cafe, a laundry, a dancing club and a bookmaker's office. The latter wasn't actually requested by anyone, but they were so profitable that it was hard to resist. The new data shows that, as a result of this whole project, the walkability of this area has grown by 20% and crime level has decreased by 30%. The game fosters constant collaboration and finding a solution through attracting money, knowledge or creativity. The availability of information about the quality of public space supports educated decisions.
87
PUBLIC SPACE
ďżź Mosque versus boulevard Places as battlefields for social groups This scenario depicts a clash of interests on a level of large social groups, rather than individuals. It uses a real case of conflict in the Moscow area of Tekstilschiki, where an abandoned green zone is threatened to become a muslim cultural center with a mosque. To show their protest, the locals have put the trees themselves in that place. At this moment the destiny of this place is unclear, but we can try to imagine, how this situation could develop further in the game. For example, muslims could also try to claim the rights for the place by simply occupying it with crowds, the way it happens on Kurban Bajram day. The locals then would have to respond with design measures, by making this place unsuitable for gatherings. On a bigger scale, scenarios like this could result in ghettoization of the city: minorities which claim their rights to public space would be pushed out and districts, occupied mostly by minorities, would become more self-sufficient and isolated from the rest. The game structures the process of changing public space around places, not around administrative system. The game also leaves the opportunity to use the outcomes for improving the actual city. The experience of negotiating and evaluating projects in public space can be further applied for better understanding the situation on specific sites in the city. For example, business people could understand the need for a certain facility in a certain place. Best practices from the process of the game can serve as a handbook for city activists.
CROWDSOURCED MOSCOW 2012
88
Battlefield at the street corner Finding a place for a sculpture in the city In this scenario an artist is looking for a good place in the city to put his newest sculpture â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a hybrid of a tractor and a gothic chapel. Parameters like density, quantity of art galleries, education of inhabitants are being evaluated. In the end, he comes up with a most appropriate place, a corner of a lively and green street. But it turns out that this place is also considered by someone else â&#x20AC;&#x201D; say, by a newspaper kiosk chain. To avoid a stalemate, they ask citizen, create a poll and broadcast information about their positive impact on the city. A strange sculpture obviously has less tangible benefits for the city and loses the competition. But then a third player suddenly enters the fight and backs the sculpture proposal with his own: he's ready to open a cafe there and to put this sculpture in front of the cafe (to attract wealthy tourists, he says). This proposal becomes even more popular than the previous two and it is easily accepted. The possibility to "read" the city cpace through quantative measures changes the way people interact with it and opens up the possibility to make precise changes, "urban acupuncture". The game introduces the mechanism of notifications, making all interested people aware of the changes in the city.
89
PUBLIC SPACE
Collective dream? Could it be that the chance to change actually depends on our possibility to dream, to imagine the change? Is there still a place for utopia? If so, playing the game of remaking public space and evaluating the variants could be a good trial of what is ultimately possible. We might realize that our wish for a different neighborhood is not as rare as we think. Comfortable parks, rebellious public art, human-scale streets â&#x20AC;&#x201D; all could be real. We might find out, that the most obscure ideas have a lot of supporters. And things also could go wrong. It could happen that opening the discussion to everyone would provoke a situation even worse than it is now. People could prefer populist changes with immediate effect to more well thought out measures. For example, instead of introducing congestion charges, massive parkings could be built, as it happened at the Red Square on the picture above. The learning curve can be shrotcut by using knowledge base and using the data, which the city provides about itself. Other danger is in polarizing opinions too much, to the point where citizen don't have the energy to agree anymore. The city could evolve in all sorts of unpredictable directions. Either way, this is going to be the city we deserve.
CROWDSOURCED MOSCOW 2012
90
Bibliography Aurigi, Alessandro and De Cindio, Fiorella ed. “Augmented Urban Spaces, Articulating the Physical and Electronic City” (2008) Borries, Friedrich von and Walz, Steffen P. and Bottger, Matthias. “Space Time Play, Computer Games, Architecture and Urbanism: The Next Level” (2007) Davies, Todd and Gangadharan, Seeta “Online Deliberation, Design, Research and Practice” (2009) Fuad-Luke, Alastair “Design Activism, Beautiful Strangeness for the Sustainable World” (2007) Gordon, Eric “Using Virtual Worlds to Foster Civic Engagement” (2011) Hampton, Keith “The Social Life of Wireless Urban Spaces” (2009) Hornecker, Eva “Role Playing a Design Game on Participatory Urban Planning for System Evaluation” (2004) Keohane, Nigel “Changing Behaviours, Opening a New Conversation With the Citizens” (2011) Krek, Anlenka “Games in Urban Planning‚ The Power of a Playful Public Participation” (2008) Lerner, Josh “What Games Can Teach Us About Community Participation” (2010) Louis Albrechts and Seymour J. Mandelbaum, ed. The Network Society, A New Context for Planning, (2005) Maas, Winy “Spacefighter, The Evolutionary Game” (2006) Norris, Emma and McLean, Sam “The Civic Commons, A Model For Social Action” (2011) Saco, Diana “Cybering Democracy, Public Space and the Internet” (2002) Scearce, Diana “Connected Citizens, The Power, Peril and Potential of Networks” (2001) Townsend, Anthony M. “Wired Unwired, The Urban Geography of Digital Networks” (1996) Varnelis, Kazys “Networked Publics” (2008) Victoria Ellis, Eugenia “City Of Dreams” (2008) Wigley, Mark “Constant's New Babylon: The Hyper-architecture of Desire” (1999) Institute for the Future. A Planet of Civic Laboratories (2010) Institute for the Future. Technologies of Cooperation (2005)
3. APPENDICES
93
PUBLIC SPACE
3.1 THEME INSTRUCTORS
Michael Schindhelm Director Michael Schindhelm is a German author, film director and theatre manager. He grew up in the former GDR and studied at the State University of Voronezh in the former USSR, graduating with a degree in quantum chemistry. In 2005, he became the first director general of the newly founded Opernstiftung, comprising Berlin’s three opera houses. From 2007 to 2009 he was cultural director of the Dubai Culture and Arts Authority, focusing on the Khor Dubai project. Since 2009 he has worked internationally as a cultural advisor, as well as continuing his work as a novelist, librettist and translator. His documentary Birds’ Nest examined the design and construction of the Beijing National Stadium.
Yury Grigoryan Co-Director Yuri Grigoryan is an architect and educator. In 1999, he founded Project Meganom with Alexandra Pavlova, Pavel Ivanchikov and Ilya Kuleshov. He and his partners have developed a wide range of projects, including private houses, large public buildings, preservations and urban plans. Recently, Project Meganom won a competition on Perm Contemporary Art Museum. In addition to practicing as an architect, Grigoryan teaches at MARKHI in Moscow.
Fedor Novikov Theme Coordinator Fedor Novikov is an economist and urban planning specialist, and co-ordinates the Public Space theme at Strelka. He has worked at the asset management firm PPP projects and as a land use analyst in the Public Advocate’s Office in New York, and was a founder of the urban advocacy group Moscow Paths. He has a BSc in economics from the London School of Economics and an MA in Urban Planning from New York University.
APPENDICES
94
3.2 STUDENTS
Anna Butenko (Moscow) Architect, graduated at Moscow Architectural Institute in 2005, Domus Academy, Interior and Living Design in 2010. Worked as an architect in "Project Meganom", "Bureau Alexandr Brodsky", "ABD Architect." Participated in social design projects made in collaboration with Mario Nanni, Mauricio Cardenas, Aldo Cibic.
Nuzhnaya Daria (Rostov) Architect, graduated at Rostov Architectural institute in 2009. Worked as an architect in several architectural studios in Rostov and Moscow.
Andrei Goncharov (Moscow) Designer, graduated at Stroganov Academy. Worked as a graphic designer at Yandex.
Maria Gulieva (Moscow) Architect, graduated at Moscow State Architectural Institute in 2006. Worked as an architect in "Sergey Skuratov Architects" and "ABD Architects"
Sergey Shoshin (Sergiev Posad) Architect and interior designer, graduated at Moscow State Architectural Institute in 2008, originally from, Moscow region. Worked as an architect in Mosproekt-2, "ADM Chernikhova", Union of Moscow architects, "Mebius".
Jezi Stankevic (Lithuania) Architect and interior designer, graduated at Vilnius Academy of arts and as an architect and interior and advertising designer at Vilnius College of construction and design. Worked as an architect in "Process" office in Vilnius and as an architect-researcher at the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia.
Anna Trapkova (Moscow) Culture expert, graduated from Russian State University of Humanities. Worked in Liberal Mission Foundation as project manager, and IRP Group consulting company as business director.