So, in 2004, a small but noisy revolution took place in Russia: despite serious opposition from all professional architectural communities, including the Union of Architects of Russia and the Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences, a new Urban Planning Code was adopted. I call this moment a revolution because it was then, de ure, that the transition from the "utopian" model of urban regulation, which had formally dominated until then, to the legal one. De facto, however, nothing has changed in the relationship between the developers and the authorities, because in fact the regulation was carried out according to the “divine” model - through manual approvals. The real revolution - quiet and unnoticed by anyone - happened three years later, when Article 48 of the Urban Planning Code, describing the features of architectural and construction design, was supplemented by Part 16, which reads: "It is not allowed to require approval of project documentation, conclusion on project documentation and other documents not provided for by this Code." This norm came into effect on January 1, 2007, and since that time, any coordination by the architecture authorities of architectural solutions is illegal. I will also note that from the same date the requirements for approval of new construction projects in protected zones with the authorities for the protection of monuments became illegal, but this is a topic for a separate essay. In the meantime, let us fix the fact that in Russia for 5 years already, it is not necessary to go to the chief architect for approvals. De ure.
How can the quality of the urban environment be regulated in such a situation? The authors of the Urban Development Code gave the answer: just like all over the world - through the development and adoption of urban planning regulations that would describe the parametric characteristics of urban development - the limits within which the developer and designer are free to make their decisions, but which they cannot go beyond. That is, in the legal aspect, the urban regulation system in Russia now does not fundamentally differ from the one that allowed Hans Stiman to carry out the reconstruction of Berlin in 1989-2010 (see essay 8). The Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that the Land Use and Development Rules, containing a map of urban planning zoning and town planning regulations, must be adopted in municipalities. The regulations, in turn, contain the types of permitted use of land plots and capital construction objects; the limiting sizes of land plots and the limiting parameters of the permitted construction and reconstruction; restrictions on the use of land plots and capital construction projects established in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
What does the transition to the legal model of urban regulation mean for the developer and designer?
The system, which operated during the Soviet period and before the adoption of the 2004 Urban Planning Code, provided that the owner of a land plot wishing to build an object on his own land (developer) applied to the architecture and town planning body of the municipality, which issued a permit for the collection of initial data (technical conditions for connection to utilities and construction conditions from the heritage protection authorities, sanitary-epidemiological, environmental and other services). On the basis of these data, the detailed planning project presented by the developer of the development sketch and the subjective vision of the chief architect of the city, the municipal authority issued the Architectural and Planning Assignment (APZ) to the developer, in which the parameters of the future object were prescribed in detail. The project was approved by the chief architect of the city, services in the field of heritage protection, ecology, sanitation, fire safety, traffic police, etc.; required numerous conclusions such as "landscape-visual analysis of the impact of the object on the historical and architectural environment." At the discretion of the chief architect of the city, the project could be submitted for discussion by the city Urban Planning Council, which included architects and officials. The developed working project was submitted for consideration by the state construction expertise and, after receiving a positive conclusion, the developer was issued a building permit.
Now this scheme has become illegitimate. How the interaction between the developer and the municipality looks now according to the law:
The rightholder of the land plot (developer) applies to the architecture and town planning body of the municipality with a request to issue him the Town planning plan of the land plot (GPZU), which is an extract of the construction and reconstruction restrictions established in the documents of town planning zoning, territory planning and technical conditions.
In accordance with the city code, the GPZU indicates:
- land plot boundaries
- boundaries of zones of action of public easements
- minimum indents from the boundaries of the land plot
- information on the town planning regulations and all types of permitted use of the land plot provided for by the town planning regulations
- information on the permitted use of the land plot, requirements for the purpose, parameters and location of the object (if there are no regulations)
- information about capital construction objects located within the boundaries of the land plot, cultural heritage objects
- technical conditions for connecting to utility networks
- the boundaries of the zone of the planned location of capital construction objects for state or municipal needs.
- information on the possibility or impossibility of dividing the site into several land plots.
All! Nothing else can be written into the GPZU, no gag! Theoretically, the GPZU should be developed as part of land-surveying projects (and in this case, you do not need to contact the municipality), but today, as a rule, it is drawn up only after the developer has contacted. The developed project is submitted for consideration by the architectural and construction expertise and, after receiving a positive conclusion, to the authorized body of the municipality, which checks the compliance of the project with the urban planning plan of the land plot and issues a building permit. There are no procedures for "approval" of the project with the chief architect, heritage protection authorities (if the building is not a monument).
Despite the fixation in the Town Planning Code, the de facto legal system of town regulation in the cities of Russia did not work. Municipalities did not know how and did not want to qualitatively develop urban planning regulations, trying by hook or by crook to preserve the "divine" model of approvals. Here is what Maxim Smirnov writes, for example, in the comments to the previous essay: “In Kazan, there is a more or less legal mechanism, there are PZZ and a number of resolutions of the executive committee (at least, formal procedures are observed). By the way, there is a special decree, which obliges to agree on the draft proposal in the GlavAPU. " Obviously, in this case we have not legal regulation, but its imitation. Formally, there is the necessary set of legal documents, including the PZZ, but the real management is carried out in manual mode - through the approval of "draft proposals". Some time ago they did the same in Novosibirsk, replacing the approvals with the "registration" of projects in GlavAPU and agreeing with the state expert that it would not accept the project without such "registration". After the intervention of the prosecutor's office, this practice was abolished.
When regulation is in manual mode, town planning regulations only get in the way. Therefore, in the PZZ of most cities, they are spelled out as vaguely as possible, so as not to restrain the imagination of the designer and the coordinator. I have already written that in the “divine” model, the principledness and professional position of the coordinator is rather easily overcome - with money, power pressure … and vague, nothing regulating regulations can no longer be an obstacle on the way of architectural solutions that disfigure cities and worsen the quality of the living environment townspeople. When the approvals are canceled not only de ure, but also de facto, as in Novosibirsk, Perm and a number of other cities, the absence of efficient regulations leads to conflicts on a regional and city scale.
Here is an example from Perm: in the existing microdistrict of 5-storey buildings, a project of a 17-storey tower appears, dramatically changing the living conditions of neighbors. Naturally, the beginning of work is accompanied by a scandal, demonstrations of residents, blocking the entrance to the construction site, etc. - people do not want a multi-storey monster to appear in their yard, sharply increasing the anthropogenic load on the territory and all types of infrastructure.
But if we look at the Perm Land Use and Development Rules, we will see that the maximum development parameters for this territorial zone have not been established, and among the many types of permitted use there are “apartment buildings with 4 floors and higher”. The developer is not lower, isn't it? This means that nothing has been violated, the town planning regulations have been complied with.
The scandal of not regional, but city significance happened at the end of last year in Novosibirsk. The public was presented with the project of a new hotel 100 meters from the central square of the city. The building should dramatically change the appearance of the central part of the city. However, it turned out that the developer is doing well. The regulations for this zone set the maximum height of buildings and structures of 50 floors, and he has twice as low! Here, however, there is also a zone for regulating the development of cultural heritage objects, and in it, according to the regulations, “the maximum building height is determined by the results of geometric visual landscape construction to preserve the visual perception of a cultural heritage object”. But, firstly, the requirement for such examinations, as we remember, is illegal, and, secondly, the developer has a positive conclusion based on the results of the visual landscape analysis!
In the comments to the previous essay, it was said that the legal model is as ineffective as the “utopian” or “divine” one. I agree that it is inoperative if compliance with legal norms is only imitated, and the real interaction of participants in urban planning activities is carried out according to completely different schemes. But, one way or another, there is only one alternative to law - lawlessness. And, sooner or later, Russia will nevertheless become a truly rule-of-law state.
How can the regulation of urban planning activities be carried out with the help of regulations within the framework of the current Urban Planning Code - in the next essay.
