For the second year in a row, the Moscow Urban Forum has been holding its visiting conferences in cities; the FUF is also coming to St. Petersburg for the second time. At the conference, held in early September, again, but already, according to the organizers, in the context of the onset of the crisis, the problems of planning, standards, and, of course, the reconstruction of a unique historical center were discussed.
Do we need a unified strategy for the spatial development of St. Petersburg and the region
One of the main topics of discussion was the question: is there a need for a spatial development strategy (master plan) as a basis for developing a new general plan for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region?
KGA and chief architect of the city Vladimir Grigoriev think they need it. The position of the committee was stated by its first deputy chairman Boris Gordeev - according to him, the spatial development strategy (SPD) and the transition to integrated planning of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region are necessary. The draft agreement on joint actions of the authorities of the two constituent entities of the Federation on the development of a unified territorial planning document for the period 2018–2043 was approved by the governments. As part of the preparatory stage at the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg on October 29, a scientific and practical conference "The main issues of the concept of the master plan of St. Petersburg" will be held - this is how the representative of the KGA described the beginning of joint work.
The Committee for Economic Policy and Strategic Planning, the developer of the strategy for the social and economic development of St. Petersburg, included the norms of urban planning (NGP) and the master plan in the general block diagram of the tools for implementing the strategy. By a recent government decree, the authority for the development of the NGP is divided between the KGA and the CEPiSP, which, perhaps, should contribute to a harmonious balance of economic and spatial planning.
Head of VTB Bank Mikhail Oseevsky also emphasized the importance of coordinating economic and territorial planning, as well as, especially in times of crisis - the need for a state strategy for the development of territories. Banks are ready to help the state, and in particular, in the creation of infrastructure facilities - said Oseevsky and, as an example, cited the fact that VTB Bank was involved in financing the construction of bridges across the Kama to connect the territories of Udmurtia.
Another example demonstrates the lack of joint planning: now St. Petersburg is losing jobs in the port due to the appearance of other ports on the territory of the Leningrad region (for example, in Ust-Luga). Coordination of the interests of the city and the region, as well as documents of economic and urban planning, would help to avoid conflicts of this kind and risks for private investors in the future.
Agglomeration: Opportunities, Risks, Management Challenges
The conversation about the general master plan of St. Petersburg and the region logically developed into the topic of agglomeration. According to many experts, it is high time to institutionalize "agglomeration", "register in the law" as a concept and work with it in the legal field.
Alexey Novikov, Dean of the Graduate School of Urbanism (HSU), warned of the dangers of such an approach, describing the experience of creating New Moscow as unsuccessful: the fact that the city has "dropped" from the administrative boundaries and needs a solution to the problem of territorial growth, according to Novikov, "does not mean the legitimacy of the adopted solutions".
The head of the Higher School of Economics listed three directions of movement towards the agglomeration:
1) unification of the city and region;
2) introduction of the institute of agglomeration into the legislative field;
3) annexation of pieces of the region by large cities.
They all contain risks. They are united by a common vicious idea of subordination of the periphery to the center, instead of creating a competitive “periphery - center” relationship. Moscow has followed the path of strict administration, while we should strive to create flexible instruments of cooperation and cooperation.
The case of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region, according to Novikov, is especially difficult. Petersburg is a city of federal significance, a constituent entity of the Russian Federation with a very centralized system of territorial planning, in which municipalities do not have any powers, while in the field of urban planning activities are subordinated to the municipal principle of organizing the territory.
Examples from world practice, cited by the speaker, convince that it is impossible to unite territories mechanically and from above. The most famous example of a flexible solution to agglomeration issues in world practice is Berlin-Brandenburg, where the question of the merger of federal states was put to a referendum, and a negative answer was received. The metropolitan area of Greater Paris has become a discussion platform for design taking into account the interests of different groups. The history of the relationship between Paris and suburban municipalities began in the middle of the 19th century, when it became necessary for the reconstruction of Paris. Baron Haussmann under the conditions of an authoritarian state conducted negotiations for five years (!), And not everyone then agreed to become part of Paris. In New York, municipalities collaborate through “floating associations” to gain mutual benefits in a wide variety of areas: garbage collection, fire protection, infrastructure services.
Therefore, we must be aware that changing the way of managing the territories of the city and surrounding regions and achieving inter-municipal cooperation is very difficult, Novikov summed up his speech. This requires the revival of the institutions of local self-government in Russia, which now seems almost unrealizable. But otherwise we run the risk of getting big problems, because agglomeration is a living being, approaches cannot be typified.
Reconstruction of the historic center of St. Petersburg: a separate law or its own administration
Head of the architectural bureau "Studio 44" Nikita Yavein calls the current situation with the historical center a “legal dead end”. If the reconstruction is carried out according to the existing norms, then we will lose a unique environment, and other tools simply do not exist. The architect believes that a special law is needed for the center of St. Petersburg. To create it, a pilot project should be implemented, developed with the participation of experts and approving authorities. Only their participation will make it possible to agree on special methods, objects, technologies suitable for the environment of the historical center of St. Petersburg. Then the rules for reconstruction obtained in the pilot project should be approved by a special law. And do the same for other historic cities. Otherwise, all the features of the historical environment, not only in St. Petersburg, but also in Moscow, Samara, Nizhny Novgorod, etc., will be lost and replaced by standard courtyards 40 x 80 meters, with the "correct" placement of the TP, garbage container, playground, firefighter travel …
Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Committee for State Protection and Use of Cultural Heritage Sites in St. Petersburg Sergey Makarov believes that no law will help, since the main problem, in his opinion, is the lack of trust, "phobias" and distrust of everyone to everyone: business to the authorities, and residents to the authorities and business.
Moscow heritage protection expert architect Boris Pasternak proposed to use the experience of Paris in flexible regulation of building parameters in protected zones. The differentiation of the utilization rate of the territory for different functions gives the investor a choice, while strict control over the development parameters preserves the characteristics of the environment.
The experience of Vancouver, which ranks high in the rankings for quality of life, was presented by the President of the Geller Group, a professor at Simon Fraser University Michael Geller (Canada). Among the flexible regulation tools in the protected zones, there is a “transfer of development rights”, which makes it possible to compensate for the losses of developers without losing the valuable qualities of the historical environment.
Representatives of the largest developers in St. Petersburg - Edward Tiktinsky, holding RBI and Alexander Olkhovsky, VTB Bank answered the questions posed by previous speakers. According to them, under the current order, business will not go into the projects of the historical center. The city, business, and residents need reliable information on the results of technical surveys, on a work schedule comparable to the amount of funding. To do all this, the developers proposed to create a special body - the Administration of the center of St. Petersburg. According to developers, the urban community should know how long the old fund can stand and realize the need to consolidate efforts, and not oppose any reconstruction project; because "doing nothing is to condemn the center to destruction." According to Alexander Olkhovsky, the most risky stage for an investor is the approval of the Council for Cultural Heritage, but the situation can be changed if the city is the customer of the projects. Thus, according to the conviction of the developers, the money of private business for the reconstruction of the historical center is able to attract public-private partnership with the legal guarantees of the city.
Urban planning standards
The participants in the last discussion tried to find out what the norms of urban planning are - a typification tool or a way to improve the quality of urban areas.
German architect Christophe Kohl - a supporter of the second version. He spoke about the priority of regional features over globalization, showed projects of a living environment for Moscow and Solikamsk using water spaces, summing up: there should be a place for beauty in the urban environment, and taking care of beautiful places requires money.
In response, the St. Petersburg developer Igor Vodopyanov, head of Teorema Management Company, spoke about the project of a residential area in Peterhof. In the original version of the architects of the Swedish company "SWECO" the river was the basis of public spaces. Design regulations and approval procedures killed this idea, and the result was a typical neighborhood. He described the city's development strategy as “immediate management”. Since laws and regulations are constantly being rewritten, the situation of uncertainty does not allow developers to take on "long" projects and forces them to maneuver. A striking example is the emergence of multi-storey ghettos on the border of the city beyond the ring road: this is the reaction of business to the reduction of the city budget in housing construction, and the relative ease of coordinating projects in border municipalities.
What should we now lay in the projects of residential areas for children: 55 ?, 60? - Igor Vodopyanov asked rhetorically, turning to the pressing issue of GBV.
The new norms of urban planning have not yet been approved (see above), the chairman of the Committee on Economic Policy and Strategic Planning told about the work on the justification of their quantitative indicators Elena Ulyanova.
In the course of this work, problems arose, mainly related to the complexity of the application of statistical and forecast data. The statistics for the administrative districts do not correspond to the boundaries of the territorial zones, and the official forecasts, primarily demographic ones, do not coincide in time with the entry into force of the norms. The Committee is faced with the difficult task of "linking" mismatched documents and data. Although the very idea of uniform norms for the entire territory of the region, Elena Ulyanova does not question it.
To the question - what kind of environment do we want to get by applying the norms? - drew attention to the head of the ECOM Center Alexander Karpov and sociologist Grigory Kertman from the Public Opinion Foundation.
According to Alexander Karpov, what is needed is not a “correct” environment, but a diverse in quality environment, about which, in particular, Jane Jacobs wrote. On the other hand, in order to overcome the monofunctionality of the periphery, it is necessary to put in the standards a certain number of jobs and a sufficient choice of services. Otherwise, the periphery will remain the result of compliance with insolation norms, sanitary breaks, school accessibility radii, and other SNiP requirements … If we no longer want such an environment, we must move away from the averaged standardization.
Sociological studies have revealed the views of residents about quality and comfort, - Grigory Kertman told about them. People value beauty, cleanliness, and the choice of leisure time “from bar to museum” in the urban environment no less than safety of life and health. On the periphery, people note the lack of a choice of cultural objects, and, on the contrary, there are not enough sports facilities in the center. Different districts of St. Petersburg have different problems. We need targeted planning, redistribution of budget funds, which is important in a crisis situation, in order to eliminate real shortcomings.
This thought was developed by Elena Korotkova, senior analyst at the Skolkovo Moscow School of Management. She presented the results of research in Ufa and Kazan, questioning the possibility of applying a single standard to different territories, as well as the assertion that the path to a quality environment lies through the norms of average security. It is possible to get away from the averaged rationing on the basis of a multivariate cluster analysis of the city in order to know what exactly for which territory needs to be added or excluded in order to achieve the quality of the environment, concluded Elena Korotkova.
Obviously, modern norms are the direct heirs of Soviet SNiPs, - said the partner of Strelka KB Grigory Revzin … It is not the goal - the creation of a comfortable environment - that determines the content of the norms, but the maintenance of the functioning of the established procedures for approvals and expertise. Now, when not the state, but private companies act as a customer, contractor and designer, the meaning of the norms is “how to build socialism at the expense of capitalists,” said Grigory Revzin and added: in everything, from preschool institutions, schools and cultural heritage, - all living things are killed as soon as it becomes an object of rationing.
Outcome of discussion
All participants agreed that change was necessary. Territorial differentiation of standards should become mandatory, for this it will be necessary to change the management system and legislation, since they contain codes for the reproduction of an environment of average quality. Without changing the goal setting, it makes no sense to clarify the details of the procedures. Without work on creating institutions of cooperation, supplementing the urban planning database, changing the methodology for developing master plans not from top to bottom, but from bottom to top, other tools, it is difficult to believe in the possibility of positive changes. This explains why the title of the article contains a quote from Igor Vodopyanov's speech.
