Spatial changes in the 21st century - Moscow case
Urban renewal around the world holds the promise of changing and upgrading infrastructure, social, economic and cultural. massive projects delivers the good news of change and introduction to the old city centers and residential environment. On the one hand, city leaders believe that the upgrade is necessary in order to produce a quality environment and adapt the city to the challenges of the 21st century. On the other hand, local residents and professionals lament that in many cases, authorities use renewal projects as a new mechanism for excluding unwanted populations and creating an economic profit channel for capitalists and government associates. In some administrations this can be clearly seen, and in others a more comprehensive examination is needed, in order to understand how the phenomenon is conducted. In a series of studies, we set out to examine how the promise of a better urban future might look behind the scenes.
The first chapter will focus on Moscow, where large-scale urban projects have taken place in the last two decades, drastically changing its landscape. The same urban investments that have been taking place in the city recently may hint at the processes of de-democratization that have been taking place in Russia at the same time since the beginning of the 21st century. Pianosa presents here an analysis of the relationship and interests between the government, the capitalists, and civil society in the urban space since the fall of the Soviet bloc, and an examination of the recent change in the balance of power; The retreat is presented using theoretical and methodological aspects of social-space relations in the city. From the story of Moscow, and similar cities in the global space, we can learn about urban renewal projects as political control mechanisms and as a tool to exclude 'undesirable' populations, assimilate symbols to showcase government power, and strengthen government associates while accumulating political capital.
background
Urban research versus Russian political practice
In the book "The Third Wave" (1991), Samuel Huntington studied the changes of regimes over the years and tried to locate a global trend in relation to world democracy. Huntington defined waves of democratization as transitions from undemocratic to democratic regimes. These crossings were identified and cataloged according to a defined period in which the number of crossings increased significantly compared to the reverse crossings in the same period of time. Such a period is remembered in Russia with the disintegration of the Soviet bloc in the early 1990s, when political and economic changes began to take place in the country and led many to believe that the bloc countries were moving towards a new and free era. The establishment of democracy in the Soviet Union is considered to be the most dramatic occurrence in the third wave of democracy. Nevertheless, if during the reign of Gorbachev (who led a series of political and economic reforms) Wilczyn could have included Russia under the waves of Huntington's democratization, then in the last twenty years, under Vladimir Putin's regime, we foresee the opposite processes taking place in the country. Although Russia has not returned to the pattern of Soviet rule, some of the characteristics of the previous regime appear in the current Russia and indicate that history is repeating itself.
With the disintegration of the Soviet bloc in 1991, widespread changes began to appear in Russia, and economic and political reforms led many to believe that the 'new' Russian state was joining the rest of the free and democratic nations of the world. Amid a series of changes that have taken place in the country, President Yeltsin has tried to deepen the reforms begun by his predecessor, to create a market economy and to strengthen the mechanisms of democracy. Among his successes at the time was the first democratic constitution of the Russian Federation (1993), which guaranteed private ownership of property, the free press, and human and civil rights. Although during this period the young Russian democracy gained many achievements, it is now categorized by elements in the Russian government as "a series of disasters during which Russia was deceived and humiliated by its enemies." With Putin coming to power, the administration began to concentrate more power in the hands of the central federal government at the expense of regional governments; Between 2001 and 2003, a series of land, property and tax reforms were implemented.
And on the urban-research side, sociologist and philosopher Henry Lefebvre argued that each environment is unique and distinct from the spaces of other societies; A city is not a random collection of people and objects in space but is constitutive in a certain order, even if sometimes hidden from view, resulting from the values of society itself. Thus, if an arrangement in which a constitutive space derives from the values of society, then not only can it be learned from the investigation of society, but from the examination and analysis of space one can learn about the institutions and state of society. In fact, the claim that the city is more than the sum of its physical characteristics is well known and recognized in political geography; The city provides us with a fertile pad for an in-depth examination and analysis of processes taking place in countries, and the built environment has always served as an object that can be critically examined in light of the following claims:
The way in which the built environment is designed replicates the power relations between the various users. Each environment allows or prevents certain types of activities - the design of the built environment openly or covertly supports certain social and ideological values. Thus, through the use of theoretical and methodological aspects of social-space relations in the city, it is possible to present the process of democratization that has been taking place in Russia in recent decades. These occurrences plus the research framework form the ground and basis for the analysis we will present here; The space is an entity shaped and changed by social agents, in the context of economic, cultural and political structures and therefore the urban changes in Moscow can be examined and analyzed and in light of them try to point to a change in the general line of Russian government regarding political, economic, civil rights and social structure.
A history of spatial control
In Russia, architecture and urban planning have always tended to define and legitimize the power of the state, and to shape society and space in order to reflect the ideological principles of the regime. In each period in which the regime in the country changed, the urban landscape in Russia (and Moscow in particular) was cleansed of old symbols to make way for new symbols and ideas. This is especially noticeable against the background of long periods of various regimes that shaped the country: the Russian Empire / Tsar that lasted for about four centuries, the Soviet regime - as it has three main periods: the 1920s, the Stalin period and the period between Khrushchev and Gorbachev 'B. Finally, from the 1990s to the last few years the post-communist era. Each such period has unique spatial characteristics designed to present the principles and objectives of the regime - Stalin's magnificent buildings designed to symbolize the power and success of the Soviet Empire are one example of such use. Adams (2008) notes that in the Russian space, monumental architecture can symbolize "the meaning of an idea, and can be used as a tool by regimes to produce a sense of unity and purpose for the people."
The Russian Empire
In the time of Tsar Nicholas I, the aesthetics and architectural style of the churches, for example, were an expression of separation and separation from the West - the "Church of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior" in Moscow is an example of this. The church symbolizes the connection between monumental architecture and the ideology of power more than any other structure in Russia and it rises to the planning agenda at every significant period in the country's history. In 1812, at the end of the Russo-French War, Tsar Alexander I declared his intention to build a cathedral to commemorate Russia's power and the memory of the loss experienced by the Russian people. Alexander initially adopted architect Alexander Witterberg's plan for a neoclassical building, but when in 1825 Alexander's brother, Nicholas I, who was a patriot and very devout in his faith, came to power, he commissioned from the architect Constantine Ton a new design, inspired by the Byzantine period.
Attempts to glorify the greatness of the tsarist regimes are also observed in the form of the glorious summer palaces of the monarchy. Particularly famous is the Peterhof Palace and Gardens complex, located in the southern Gulf of Finland, also known as the "Russian Versailles". It is a palace complex built by Peter the Great and served as a summer home for the nobility and as a place designed to show the great wealth of Russia and impress the important visitors who came to visit the empire.
The communist period
For the communists, architecture was understood as an important factor in the construction of the communist nation; It is not for nothing that the words "foundations" or "construction of communism" became the cornerstones of Soviet political discourse. After the Bolshevik Revolution the emphasis in the area was to strengthen the name of the party's founders and hence many statues of Lenin were erected in many cities across the USSR, as well as the mausoleum erected near the Kremlin. The highest and most impressive Soviet power was the main building of Moscow State University; the huge neoclassical complex included a 790-meter-high tower that dominated the city from its seat in the Lenin Hills.When completed, it was the tallest building in the world outside of New York.
In 1935 a new plan was prepared for Moscow, which sought to settle the new developments as the ideal urban structure - a hierarchical circle of the city around the Kremlin. The plan was then presented as "the transformation of Moscow into an exemplary socialist city, the capital of the world proletariat." Communist rule in Russia was openly anti-religious and therefore with Lenin's death it was decided that in place of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, mentioned earlier, the Soviet Palace would be erected to the glory of socialism. The plan included the erection of a huge sculpture of Lenin (somewhat reminiscent of the phenomenon of sculpture in modern-day Russia).
After the war, the emphasis in the USSR was on the establishment of military installations, electricity generation, public transport development and the construction of government centers and thus a severe housing crisis arose in the country. Subsequently the Soviet governments created huge housing projects (Khrushchev). (Because of destruction from the war), and in other areas and most often they were built in the urban periphery. This continued the trend since the tsarist era when the city center was dominated by monumental objects of government, elite housing, prestigious cultural institutions, and historical monuments.
The Khrushchevka buildings testify to the great change that has taken place in Soviet policy and culture. In the time of Joseph Stalin, the architecture of the "Stalinist Empire" glorified the country, and most of the new residential projects then built were spacious, ornate buildings, designed specifically for elite members. At that time while most residents lived in dilapidated barracks and cramped shared apartments, shared toilets and kitchens and bathed in public baths. After Khrushchev came to power, he declared that the architecture introduced in the 20 years before his rule was characterized by costly exaggerations that "caused significant damage to the economy and prevented improvement of living conditions." Instead, he decided that simple residential buildings should be erected, which could be built at low cost and quickly, while striving to provide each family with its own apartment. Thus began an unprecedented housing venture in human history, which lasted three decades. By 1975, the Soviet Union had built 1.3 billion square meters of residential space, and continued to build on a huge scale until it dismantled.
Post-communism
The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the consequent dissolution of the communist bloc as a whole, led to many changes in the post-communist countries in Europe. Many national processes changed the surface and caused drastic changes in a short period of time. Massive privatizations, the dismantling of welfare programs, increased economic changes, various outside investments and market commercialization shocked the entire political system. The new states have entered a new ideological era.
In the Russian system there was in fact no previous spatial planning law, the urban system was much more engineering than human. Despite many regulatory changes made in the Russian government between 92-98 the field of urban planning remained undeveloped. At the same time, in 1998, 61 of the 89 provinces in Russia adopted at least a number of measures of planning on planning issues. That same year the federal government formulated the “Urban Development Code” that finally organized the country’s planning system. However, along with the privatization processes that have taken place in the urban space of the country, the political elite has used urban planning to strengthen its grip on the space and institutionalize it under the development of the city.
It can be argued that the urban planning system in Russia in these years (until 2003) is the result of conflicting factors: the Soviet system, the bureaucratic power, the crystallization of urbanization and provinces in the federal government, and the various interests involved in the country’s legislative processes. The change in the state structure inevitably led to a change in the system of government within the cities themselves as well. However, these changes were not uniform. At the general level these cities began to undergo processes of integration into the world economy. The transition from the communist system to a free market economy was a significant catalyst for other changes in the post-communist countries. New institutions, official and unofficial, have been established, responsible for shaping economic processes and urban economic behavior.
Well, you can see how monumental architecture expresses a variety of themes, memories, events, myths and traditions some of which reinforce each other - the Tsar and the Church for example, and others are in conflict - the Soviet regime and the Orthodox Church. In this section we have come to understand the significant place that the production and design of space occupies throughout history in Russia and how the various regimes have used it for their own purposes. In the next chapter we will already be able to see topical examples taking place in modern-day Russia, and we will even notice a great resemblance between certain actions taken by the federal and local government in the city of Moscow, and regimes from the periods presented in this chapter.
Analysis
The changes in Moscow - 21st century
Moscow proves to us how the contemporary city, especially in the neo-liberal-global era, is a field for local and global economic-social events and changes. The most important city in Russia has been facing in the last two decades massive changes in its urban landscape; A new master plan, new municipal laws, change and infrastructure improvements, and huge capital investments in real estate, all while building architectural monuments that change its face. Urban planners and activists are now involved in discussing the account of urban change; Others lament that the changes are nothing but new ways of corrupting the old. Some argue that the attempt to make Moscow a modern city represents a strategy of authoritarian modernization aimed at strengthening the power of the president and mayor, and accumulating political capital. Some questions we would like to consider:
Is it possible that processes of urban renewal on such a large scale indicate a retreat from democratic principles?
How can architectural monuments attest to an attempt to create new spatiality, and to mark political territory?
1. Urban renewal
Urban renewal processes are met with mixed scrutiny in the major cities in which they take place; On the one hand, change and improvement of physical space, along with a chance to move the old city centers, which in many cases, especially in the light of the suburbs in the middle of the last century, disintegrated and became centers of crime and urban aversion. On the other hand, many projects only exacerbate inequality gaps, exclude and push old populations, and produce urban segregation, under the auspices of the neoliberal economy.
In the last decade, the development and processes of urban renewal in Moscow have reached new heights; Hundreds of demolition and construction projects of old communist buildings, renovation of Gorky Park, railway line around Moscow, restoration of one million square meters of streets and replacement of floors throughout the city are just some of the projects linked under the name "Moscow, a comfortable city". One of the largest evacuation-construction plans in world history, which is expected to demolish 7,900 old buildings and evacuate about 1.5 million residents until they are relocated. From the opportunities offered by the city center. Residents who have lived all their lives as urban are not so keen on leaving the old city center, but the administration does not seem to have left them too much choice. Enough goods and services in the new suburbs? And how their children will get to school.
The administration claims that this is a necessary step to improve and upgrade infrastructure while the evicted tenants fear that this is another step on the way to their exclusion from the city center, while land prices are only rising. The main criticism of the renewal processes is that their motivation is mainly economic and political, as the developers and the municipality are expected to rake in particularly high profits, while the old tenants may move to neighborhoods far from economic opportunities, as happens in renewal processes. ". And from this, it can be predicted that in the coming years in the center
Only the oligarchs, elites, and government associates can live in and around the city due to the extreme housing prices in the area.
In fact, the Russians did not invent the mechanism of renewal as an act of control of space; It is possible to go back to Napoleon III, who initiated a huge program of infrastructure investments in 19th century Paris, in order to solve the economic crisis. The excavation work continued and reached as far as central Paris, where the legendary engineer Hausmann used the extensive powers he received from Napoleon to destroy the city center neighborhoods, which were linked to the working class and other unrestrained elements who threatened political order.
And in Russia, to do so even simpler; Federal legislation allows the Moscow municipality to demolish entire neighborhoods. Today, legal action is already in place against those who did not agree to transfer ownership of their apartment within two months from the date of eviction in the giant renewal projects. Mesokba demonstrates to us how sophisticated authorities use space to realize political and economic goals. At the municipal level, authorities sometimes exercise forms of planning oversight through land and housing use policies as we have seen in this section. An example of this occurs in the construction of the Lakhta Center in St. Petersburg, where the planning procedures of the building underwent an expedited procedure and were not submitted to the National Monuments Protection Committee (KGIOP) for evaluation and examination nor to the city's planning consulting department. And here is an example of a huge project that does not go through the usual planning pipes.
Through the mechanism of renewal, the Russian regime does not have to use force and use the many expropriation powers in its hands; The system created through public-private investment focuses on investment and economic development as a political goal. If we compare the case of Moscow to other places in the world (perhaps also to Israel), we can point to a major difference regarding the fact that while central economic powers are no longer in the hands of the state and authorities in most democracies, in Russia economic resources are in power, and here is an example of how he uses them. Strengthen a grip on space. In Israel, an average evacuation construction project takes 12 years from initiation to implementation, in Russia, however, even today these processes take place within a few years, without any ability for audit and public-professional examination.
2. Assimilation of statues and iconic buildings throughout the city
Researchers claim that the two countries that use urban monuments most intensively are Russia and China. This they explain, the two countries can do thanks to a combination of ease of development (authoritarian governments control the planning process en masse) and a high amount of capital resulting from trade surpluses.
Dozens of skyscrapers have grown in Moscow in the last two decades, constituting six of the ten tallest buildings in Europe, years of which are also in second and third place (Federation and OKO). Skyscrapers are today the most important architectural monument in the global network of urban expertise, and some argue that this is a visual announcement by every city of entering the top of the global economy. Massive construction of skyscrapers, whose construction cost and planning time usually takes many years, can only be made possible thanks to fruitful and rapid cooperation between the authorities and private developers. This sharing can attest to and hint at the exclusion of the public from the planning process. Researcher Lakio (2008) points out that more and more skyscrapers are being built in authoritarian countries, thanks to the shortening of public proceedings. In democracies it is very difficult to motivate large-scale projects, and they are often caught up in political struggles and exposed to opposition from residents. Even at the Ground Zero site in New York it took about ten years of planning before construction began. Examining the list of the 10 tallest buildings in the world, helps to understand the claim.
Statues are additional spatial monuments that emerge throughout Moscow (just as was done during other periods of rule). Statues of controversial Russian figures (Ivan the Terrible, St. Vladimir) are erected and express power, control and authority. The cultural dimension of space production includes the effects of planning on the shaping of cultures and the formation of the shared identities in the country. When new sculptures are inaugurated in the form of strong, authoritative and religious past leaders, a message is conveyed to the local community, what are the leading values and what is the dominant ideology. In this way, the production of space is expressed at the political level in a way that symbolizes the intention of the regime and unites the citizens around the desired narrative.
Conclusions
Planning is an integral part of the spatial production strategy of countries. Planning can have positive consequences when space is shaped in a balanced way according to a triangle of capital-government and civil society. On the other hand, planning may also have repressive consequences, with social elites and / or wealthy people insisting on homogenizing the national space, by enforcing their version of the desired physical-cultural landscape. It seems that the radical changes in the Moscow space, through intensive projects sponsored by the 'urban renewal' and the upgrading of the city, are actually used for a number of visible and hidden purposes:
Motivating the faltering Russian economy through public investment.
A mechanism for dealing with unwanted populations, exchanging and transferring populations and promoting urban segregation that makes central Moscow the city of elites, under the auspices of the neoliberal economy. A way to transfer resources, capital and employment to those close to the government.
Replacement and transfer of populations and promotion of urban segregation.
And a few more things to learn from the ostentatious Moscow renewal project:
Huge projects can provoke public criticism and a sharp social outlook and need to be realized with caution
Huge-scale urban projects have become increasingly difficult to implement in democratic countries, and are rapidly materializing in authoritarian countries (evidence, huge amount of skyscrapers and regeneration projects in China, Arabian Peninsula and Russia versus shuffling in Western and US countries). And the speed with which they are implementing proves that the Russian regime is becoming more and more authoritative and able to implement far-reaching spatial changes.These projects are used to strengthen Russia's international image and to mobilize local support for the mayor and president.
The characteristics of the planning processes can indicate the nature of the regime
The Russian projects are characterized by a TOP -BOTTOM that is sometimes done violently. The city center erasure project and its total and rapid replacement with modern buildings used by distinct populations is another example of the regime's unilateral actions vis-à-vis the citizens.
Urban renewal processes may be used to realize political and economic goals
As well as the exclusion of "problematic" populations and the strengthening of the political elite close to power. The ideology of the Russian government (always) is that the city should be shaped according to the interests of the government; Accordingly, it is easy to distinguish who is gaining and who is losing in the current renewal processes.
The cultural-national history of Russia is built and perpetuated through the urban space in Moscow
Similar characteristics can be found between the current occurrences and others we have shown in the past. The use of religious elements and ostentatious and grandiose monuments shows us how the Russian government sanctifies values of power, authority, ostentation and religion at the expense of other values, through the use of sculptures of glorious and controversial Russian figures, from the Russian past.