This "round table" was a logical continuation of the previous one, devoted to the topic of affordable and comfortable housing. Infrastructure is a sticking point. The availability and comfort of housing depend on it. Moreover, if it is traditionally believed that the more developed the infrastructure, the more expensive housing, then, according to Vyacheslav Glazychev, a member of the Public Council under the President of Russia, the infrastructure can determine the affordability of housing based on the principle of compensation. Here, the shortage of square meters of living space is complemented by a developed social infrastructure - places for study and work, rest and leisure, and other activities of interest as it was during the Soviet era. That is, housing turns into a place where, by and large, you can comfortably spend the night, no more. It is clear that such housing is suitable for non-family youth. Therefore, according to Glazychev, the implementation of such a scenario requires a thorough study of the plot of the social dwelling. This should be housing, from which a person can and should "grow", climbing the social ladder and acquiring more comfortable and spacious apartments. This is how the housing issue of the poor, in particular young people, around the world is being addressed. "There is no need to flatter yourself," Glazychev persuaded his colleagues referring to the positive social experience of the West, "there are no less poor in New York than in Moscow."
Moscow City Duma deputy Mikhail Moskvin-Tarkhanov, evaluating real investments in infrastructure development, came to a “terrible” conclusion in a market economy: it is necessary to eliminate the private investor from the process of building large-scale urban areas with social housing. According to the deputy, only the city itself should be engaged in social construction. Since the city still spends more than 20% charged from investors on infrastructure development, which, in the opinion of Moskvin-Tarkhanov, is tantamount to hidden subsidies of private investors. Most of the costs that go to the creation of infrastructure for large-scale complex construction, the private investor still covers himself. So either price increases or infrastructure degradation are provoked. Both are opposite to the goals of the national project “Affordable and Comfortable Housing - for the Citizens of Russia”.
In addition, as noted during the roundtable, private investors are not interested in the construction of the most popular in the capital market (in particular, as a “second home”) small apartments. Since the introduction of additional engineering greatly increases the cost of a meter compared to its cost in apartments with a larger area. As the deputy director of MNIITEP Vitaly Anikin pointed out, nowhere in the world is there such a thing as “the cost of a square meter. m ", there is -" the cost of an apartment ", which makes the real estate market more flexible and affordable. Also, private traders are forced to "wind up" the price of housing by including in it the costs of numerous (more than two hundred and a half) approvals. A separate item in the rise in the cost of housing is the cost of renting land. "Cheap housing can only be on cheap land", - said the President of the Agrarian Academy Viktor Logvinov. Finally, the participants in the discussion pointed out that today the construction of cheap housing in Russia is impossible due to the country's legal and regulatory framework. Nowhere else in the world is there such scrupulous in terms of insolation, ventilation and other mandatory standards.
However, despite the arguments in its favor, Moskvin-Tarkhanov's thesis about excluding a private investor from the construction of social housing and infrastructure development has caused a lot of controversy. According to expert estimates, the implementation of all infrastructure projects in Russia in the next 10 years will require about $ 1 trillion. dollars. Such a sum is unlikely to be found in the budgets of the country's municipalities. And it would be strange to restrict the activities of private companies, when forms of public-private partnership are actively developing all over the world and the liberalization of markets traditionally considered exclusively the concern of the state - utilities, electricity, road construction, etc. Moreover, this experience is not new for Russia: in the 1920s, we had the USSR Main Concession Committee, and social infrastructure facilities were actively transferred in concessions.
In connection with the boom in housing construction in Moscow and the development of infrastructure that does not keep pace with it, the head of the NGO for prospective and urban development of the territory of the city of NiPI of the General Plan of Moscow, Oleg Baevsky, noted the need to change the urban planning strategy of the capital. “The previous General Plan of Moscow was the General Plan of Opportunities,” said the Deputy Director of the Research Institute of the Polytechnic Institute of the General Plan of Moscow. - And it has fulfilled its function - it has stepped up investment activity. Now we need a Master Plan of necessity. " For example, Baevsky considers the preservation of open spaces, and not the creation of high-rise dominants, to be more significant today for the capital. Therefore, in addition to horizontal, it is necessary to introduce vertical zoning. The issue of integrated development, focused on the creation of self-sufficient residential areas in terms of infrastructure, remains urgent. In particular, in each of them it is necessary to build boiler houses and remove heating mains. Since, due to the network of heating mains enveloping the capital, 42% of the heat heats the streets, and about 500 Moscow microdistricts require reconstruction for this reason. As a positive experience in terms of infrastructure, Baevsky noted the "vertical" micro-districts that have been more and more exciting in Moscow lately, "crowded" on themselves, that is, carrying all the necessary infrastructure. With regard to social housing, Baevsky called for an end to the absurd practice of the absence of reservations, firstly, territories for social construction, and secondly, housing itself, which is not alienated from the city.