- I was told that you do not really want to talk about the renovation …
- Why? Not at all. The idea of renovation, if viewed from the perspective of urban theory, is correct. The loose territories of Moscow, created in the concept of an industrial city, where there is an administrative center, industrial zones and residential areas, must be reconfigured somehow. Sleeping areas, like centrifuges, there is nothing to do there, so they generate excess pendulum traffic - not only automobile, but also public transport. They weigh on the country's GDP, scatter pedestrian flows of people, instead of creating them and promoting the development of small and medium-sized businesses. In my opinion, they do more harm to the entire service economy of the city than corruption and administrative barriers. Their territories are poorly planned and structured spaces. Reconfiguring them is a challenge for both architects and urbanists 50-100 years ahead. Moreover, the most difficult in this sense are the sleeping areas of 16-18-storey buildings, they are worse than five-storey buildings.
Why do you consider microdistricts with 16-18 floors to be problematic? After all, as far as I understand, the current plans for Moscow renovation involve just replacing 5-storey buildings with 15-storey ones, tripling the height
- I really hope that this will not happen. Then the city will move from the acceptable to the obviously unacceptable. If this approach is based on the idea of recouping the budgetary expenses for renovation by building additional floors and selling apartments, then this is a mistake. The problem lies in the wrong economic calculation.
The city announced that it is not making money for renovations, only investing. Many believe that, solely in order to recoup the costs, you need to build somewhere three times as many square meters of housing. This is simplified arithmetic, which in my opinion gives the opposite result.
First, when there are a lot of square meters, they can fall in price, possibly unevenly across the city, but this can happen. It is important here not even that the expected amount from sales may be less, but that a fall in the price per square meter may have a bad effect on individual mortgage banks, for which a stable and even growing price of collateral (and these are apartments) is the basis for risk reduction lending. One unstable loan portfolio is enough, and an unpleasant chain of problems in the banking system can begin. It is not worth dramatizing, but it is imperative to calculate and look at the risk structure of mortgage banks in the context of renovation.
Secondly, this "state construction" approach is based not on urban, but on engineering and construction logic. Nowadays there is a lot of talk about the city, the creation of a comfortable urban environment. They talk about the environment, but they still count square meters! Since we are creating an environment, then we need to consider the economy of the environment, the income that it can bring to the city budget, and not just to developers. If you make a layout in which there will be pedestrian flows, if the density is optimal, and not excessive, then the additional income from the resulting service function will allow you not to increase the number of storeys, which is now planned mainly in order to “recapture” square meters.
On average, you should get from six to eight floors - no more. In houses higher than eight floors, the first "commercial" floors are no longer working, the area remains dormitory. There are calculation models that show this. In microdistricts with 16-18-storey buildings, you don't even have to worry about freeing up the first floors for commercial functions, business will not survive there.
Why?
- Because according to sanitary standards, high-rise buildings should be located at a considerable distance from each other, which in turn does not allow a person to connect them with each other. It is inconvenient for people to walk there, everything is too far from each other. The experience of many Russian and foreign cities shows this.
The retail business needs a stream of customers; the stream forms an environment suitable for walking, for the so-called "eye walking"; a person walks down the street and reacts to what comes into his field of vision. Everything he needs is close to him and visible. The Soviet sleeping microdistrict does not create such a flow, which is why it is responsible for the low share of small and medium-sized businesses in the country's economy.
How to consider the economic component of the territory, which is associated with retail and other public functions, if they do not exist yet?
- On simulation models, which roughly set the type of human behavior. There are many such empirically calibrated models. You can take a block as a model part inside Moscow itself, see how it works. Now I have a student, Innokenty Volyansky, doing a similar job. It is devoted to the porosity / permeability of the quarters: based on specific data, he calculates the economic effect of the density of the building spot and the degrees of freedom (options for passing through the built-up area) within a particular quarter. The result should be an answer - what level and type of porosity in the quarter is capable of generating a variety of functions and cash flow from retail.
And how does multi-storey Singapore or multi-storey China solve this problem of ground floors and high-rise buildings?
- We leave China aside - it does not decide in any way. Absolutely backward urban planning sample of 1970. It will end very badly, in my opinion.
Singapore is a completely different story. Slightly different norms, including higher social tolerance for closer spaces, very dense development, but it is in Singapore that new neighborhoods are very sensibly built, although they are built in a completely different way. These are not neighborhoods in their pure form, they are a cross between a microdistrict and a quarter. But you need to remember that there are 5.5 million people in Singapore. About 1/3 of them are foreign workers, they live in separate dormitories, a bit like prisons, in 9-meter rooms for 4 people. These hostels are located mainly on the outskirts of the island. 60 thousand, 100 thousand people in each hostel. And the Singaporeans themselves, mostly middle class, live in very comfortable conditions.
It turns out incomparable
- Not very comparable. Rather comparable to the United States. But there the loose buildings are not multi-storey, but low-rise. It is believed that in California the volume of the renovation that has taken place is about the same as planned in Moscow. They build quite a lot, for example, between San Diego and the Mexican border there is a piece that used to be the periphery of military bases, a wide built-up strip of coastline is demolished and rebuilt … But such comparisons are also not entirely correct, because, in particular, there many operators of such projects of redevelopment of built-up areas. Relatively small projects, each on its own. Not the state of California is demolishing it all, but individual municipalities. And in Moscow there is one redevelopment program affecting 1.5 million people, and one major project operator. Gigantomania leading to great and still poorly understood risks.
We are doing it again in a directive way, the tradition is like that. So how do you feel about the Moscow renovation? Or otherwise, how to implement the micro-districts "settings" you mentioned?
- How to do this is a separate question. From a conceptual point of view, I would defend renovation, since many territories, almost the entire sleeping zone of Moscow, simply pull resources from the Moscow economy, instead of creating them, their layout is not for a market economy in the post-industrial era. It is necessary to enter the renovation through the territory, and not through the building. I think that going through a series of houses is a mistake.
However, the main problem now is timing. A mad rush, a desire to get into the electoral cycle, voting from house to house in a few weeks, unprecedented vanity. Only the development of such a program should take years, its professional and public discussion - years, but here … As Gilbert Chesterton said: "Haste is bad because it takes a lot of time."
Yes, the terms of the Moscow renovation are tight …
- This puts the entire project in a situation where it, in fact, does not imply discussion. I am against an immediate vote at home. Not only does this create friction within houses between residents, but it also prevents them or the initiators of the program from figuring out anything. Despite the fact that some part of people clearly wants to move to other houses, it is true that some people want to part with their apartments in five-story buildings, but there are others in their houses. And it’s not a vote, but a lengthy discussion. Five to six years is a minimum, for discussion and agreement, based on the experience of different countries. A whole series of public hearings, many at different stages. It takes time for the initiators of the renovation to be able to form at least some concept and develop compensation mechanisms, and people understand where they can move, what they would prefer, against or for. So far, people have not been presented with anything other than an abstract thesis about improving the quality of housing. Yes, even if the specifics were presented, then they need time to come to an agreement with each other as copyright holders. Voting - only crowns this agreement, it is a tool, not the goal of the process.
It is good that now the law [on renovation] includes a clause with economic compensation, and not only in kind, in the form of housing. Since we are talking about 1.5 million people, 10% of the city's population, who will change their location. If they themselves choose a new place of residence, maybe improve the quality of housing by taking a loan or repaying their money, then this will be a sensible action, and as a result, the traffic of re-runs will decrease, which will inevitably arise as a result of distribution of natural housing, since it is not optimally located relation to the space-time strategies of people and their families.
Now people in the networks are discussing that even in the case of monetary compensation, its value may be underestimated …
- This is another big question. According to international experience, the size of the redemption value is offered by the rightholder, the owner. Not the mayor's office, not the municipality, not the initiator of the transformation, but the owner of the home. Bargaining begins with the size proposed by the owner. It is clear that in a practical sense, it is necessary to reach a certain realistic price, and therefore the municipality or regions that are initiating such programs roughly estimate what is a reasonable price and compensation - the coefficients are 1.3-1.5, sometimes more depending on the market …
- That is, the initiator of the renovation pays b about the greatest cost, but not equivalent and even more equivalent?
- Always used about more. The same compensation, even if compensation in kind, then - with an increase in living space. Never equal, because everyone understands that if a person is removed from their place, they knock him out of the space-time rhythm to which he is accustomed - this is damage. Plus sentimental values - I just listened to the defense of the diploma at the Higher School of Economics, which was devoted to the assessment of sentimental values during resettlement. This is an attempt to assess the break in connection with a familiar, or maybe a favorite place for a person who is being “demolished”.
Compensation to the relocated owner is a ransom. It will probably be impossible to refuse it and return everything to its original state, if the court made a decision in favor of the initiators of the project, but it will be possible to compensate for the damage.
At the same time, everyone understands that the “market” value is calculated in different ways: both at the time of resettlement and over a long period. The latter method is, of course, more objective. In addition, it is important whether, in addition to compensation, the owner is given an additional instrument, for example, a mortgage loan, so that he increases his area: maybe you have a two-room apartment, and you want a four-room apartment. And what is the percentage of the loan? Is it possible to use compensation in order to buy housing on the secondary market, and not just in a newly built house? It is known, after all, that the building complex seeks to sell what was built, including according to budget programs, but this circumstance should not limit citizens in their preferences for the secondary market, if any.
It is important what the rights of a resident are, whether he can sue not only for the amount of compensation, but for the very fact that the renovation is taking place in his quarter, and why in this particular place, and not another. Why, if you are building some kind of ozone station in the city, for which you need to demolish part of the block, you need to do it right here, or maybe there are alternatives? That is, in order for a person to have the opportunity to include the city authorities in the dialogue on the subject that the authorities may have been mistaken, it may be necessary to choose another place. In any case, this is a lengthy process, it takes several years, not weeks.
Is there nowhere closing the opportunity to go to court?
- Of course not. This is very important. Where a concept, no matter how correct and good, rests on the fundamental rights of citizens, it retreats. It may be that the court made a decision in favor of the initiators of this transformation, then we are talking about compensation. Compensation is appointed by the owner, then negotiations take place, then they stop at something. Not so that the city came and said: we give you an apartment for 5-10 m2 more, be satisfied. Usually the other way around.
The Higher School of Economics is now preparing a report analyzing foreign experience in the renovation of built-up areas. This is a work in the genre of "white paper". primarily to make it easier to participate in discussions; in addition, we advised the renovation program, and we continue to do so. Since we are the Graduate School of Urbanism, we must do such a study, because the topic is precisely urban, not architectural, and not even urban planning in the narrow sense of the word. Although we give the specialty urban planner, but in a much broader and deeper context.
I cannot but ask how you feel about the now widespread version of the "conspiracy" - that the entire renovation was conceived in order to save the building complex?
- I think this is doubtful, the Moscow state building complex will pull only 1/3 of this program, they do not have such capacities. I have a feeling that so far there is no understanding of the effect of this volume on the entire fabric of the city. They say that we have enough engineering infrastructure, transport arteries do not need to be built up, because the additional density will create more pedestrian flows and distract people from cars. Indeed, there is such an urban theory: the higher the density, the less car traffic. But everything must be calculated in relation to Moscow, and I have not yet seen any calculations on this topic.
We recently spoke with architects, they agree that first we need a master-plan of the city, an examination of the city as a whole, and not work with individual sections
– Only this way and nothing else. They are absolutely right. First of all, a broad “bird's-eye view” is needed, with the identification of points that could become these new centers of attraction. Second, go from the territory, and not from the quality of the building (if it is not in disrepair, of course). Poorly structured areas that are difficult to get to, to which there are more than two stops by public transport from the metro station, which are isolated, and you need to start with them. But not from all at once, there are many of them, but from those that have the potential to change other areas, to affect the environment. All this will take at least 15 years.
In addition to the master plan, there is also the PZZ - the rules for land use and development, they have just been adopted, and now a huge piece is being withdrawn from them. It would seem that the opposite is necessary - take advantage of the renovation and hone the PZZ.
Obviously, there is no need to reproduce new sleeping areas in place of old ones. Some of the territories can serve as a platform for an employment center. Moscow lacks sub-centers, some of the districts can be used for the development of new functions, and some can be made mixed, but certainly not entirely residential. The territory must be balanced.
Actually, the Higher School of Economics is developing a model that can calculate the balanced economic potential of city quarters and districts. This work was started by the first dean of the Higher School of Economics A. A. Vysokovsky based on the “model of uneven zoning” of the city he created. The model is based on an algorithm for identifying poles in the tissue of the city, around which new employment centers, alternative to the center of Moscow, can develop. A lot of statistics were collected for it, then we modernized it, in particular, we connected the data of mobile operators. It gives a fantastically interesting picture: in fact, it is a parametric model of the city, in which you can change individual parameters and see what happens at the output. According to calculations based on this model, unstructured spaces in Moscow occupy about 45% of the city's territory (excluding New Moscow).
Did you offer it to the mayor's office, Moskomarkhitektura?
- Of course. Sergey Kuznetsov knows her, we discussed it with him, he and his colleagues are interested. To the building block management, the idea of allocating unstructured spaces seemed reasonable. It is clear that there may be different considerations, but the model makes it possible to single out functional zones, indicate the types of preferred buildings in a particular place, and determine locations for new employment centers.
But what about the fact that the market now, on the contrary, requires only housing to be built - in any case, this is what developers say …
- This is an absolutely standard desire of any developer, since housing is the most profitable type of permitted use of the territory today. It can be built even where there is no infrastructure, and it will be bought as an investment, in reserve. In this sense, Moscow is a victim of the Dutch disease, the petrodollar generated by the economy - it needs to be invested somewhere. There is little confidence in accumulation through financial instruments, then it remains only through real estate. Which property is the best to invest in? In the living room, of course. Where? In Moscow and St. Petersburg a little. Any developer with a simple economic perspective will look towards this market.
This is what urban regulation is for. PZZ could "package" this market so that the share of permitted residential development in the total real estate volume would be very small. I see perfectly well that the people who make decisions in Moscow understand that housing is an excessively strong type of permitted land use, some of them are afraid that they will not be able to restrict it, to keep control even with the help of the PZZ. They just don't know how to do it yet. But it is already clear to everyone that regulation, whatever it may be, should limit the appetites of developers for housing and stimulate them to build various types of real estate. What is done through the regulations of legal zoning. There are still very few of them, or none at all. It is not yet clear when they will be.
And where does the model show new centers? How to find them at all?
- The very structure of the Gordian space literally "asks" for these additional centers. There are many points of intersection of linear transport arteries, the Moscow Central Circle (MCC), the Moscow River and industrial zones, I would pay attention to this first of all. The poles of new activity arising at such intersections are very important. As for the MCC, while it generates more new traffic than redistributes the existing one, but it is just starting to function, it should work in full force over time. The most important role is played by the "linear center" of the Moscow River. It works great for the peripheral sleeping areas of Moscow. Plus its intersections with the MCC, and radial highways that form TPU and sub-centers of the city.
In London, the area around King's Cross and St Pancras stations became the second center of the city, social life, commerce moved there: startups, a huge number of different institutions. To the extent that people go to the station for lunch, right on the platform. Unusually high quality of service for railway stations, restaurants, hotels, next to the British Library. This entire area is a clear alternative to the City of London. I look at what is happening on the Three Stations Square in Moscow - a completely different story. It would be very cool to solve it in the same way. The city and Russian Railways must agree for this. It is not only about the square and the railway, but also about all the adjacent districts.
Does the program of reconstruction of 39 ADG cinemas fit into the idea of creating new public centers?
- This is a commercial project, of course, but I must say that I consider it almost brilliant. The very formulation of the question is remarkable - a project for the revival of the old Soviet infrastructure, turning it into a network of public centers, each for a couple of micro-districts. A shopping area instead of a shopping street. If they succeed, if they do not just a shopping center, if they correctly guess its filling, then it will be akin to Uber - sort of like a business, but in fact a project with a strong social effect. Uber is saving huge amounts of money for city transportation departments, tens of billions of dollars. A cinema-based community center can do the same.
- Much has been said, including by you, that 16-storey microdistricts, as well as higher high-rise buildings that are being built on the Moscow Ring Road and in New Moscow, threaten to turn into ghettos over time. We know this process from the post-war neighborhoods of Western countries. However, if you remember
FUF 2013, Project Meganom bureau and Strelka showed there the study “Archeology of the Periphery”, which, in particular, showed that the inhabitants of the Soviet neighborhoods of the “first belt” do not want to leave them, they are ready to leave everything as it is. They are happy with their apartments and, possibly, with their neighborhoods. Why does the market not regulate this situation in our country? Why is there no ghettoization of micro-districts?
- The smearing of social categories for buildings of different quality is one of the few advantages that we inherited from the Soviet era. God forbid to destroy it, fall into the ghettoization. In full, we will have the problems that Europe and other countries have now. By itself, this smear is beautiful, and it would somehow be preserved. But it may disappear if a sharp differentiation in housing prices begins. What is the social diversification of Moscow districts based on? Exclusively on the unique role of Moscow. If other cities begin to offer adequate conditions, the quality of life of people, they will calmly begin to move there, Moscow will lose its status as a unique market. This is great, on the one hand, the congestion of Moscow will decrease. However, if suddenly the supply of housing due to this renovation will be much greater than the demand for it, and price differentiation begins, then wait for the ghettoization. And yes, the first will not be five-storey buildings, 16-18-storey microdistricts.
As for the conservatism of people, it must be respected. Therefore, projects like the renovation of territories take a long time to start, take a long time to harness, persuade, offer, people slowly rebuild, see what is happening, the value system is changing. Yes, it is changing. Now people like to live like this, then they may change their minds, their incomes will change. This is all happening, just not very quickly.
I believe that it is impossible to press on renovation on such a scale, at such a pace - in 10-15 years people will change their transport behavior and life values. And then they will build something that does not fit this new behavior at all. Values may change with regard to the quality of housing, its tenure regime, and preferred location. The best way to predict the future is to slow down the pace, try to adapt to the emerging social transformations, and respond to waves of demand, and not just 50 years ahead, just take and change 10% of the city's territory to match today's professional stereotypes.
Among the opponents of renovation there are also environmentalists, they are sounding the alarm at all
- From an ecological point of view, small compact city squares complement the forest parks much better than green wastelands of dormitory world districts. There is a lot of research on this topic. If we look at a microdistrict with unformed green space, with low-quality trees, a microdistrict that works like a centrifuge, inviting its residents to leave it by car, no matter for what, work or entertainment, just to leave, creating an additional load on infrastructure and environment, what kind of ecology can we talk about? Giant wastelands with one playground are working against the environment. An expanded network of small squares in a densely built-up urban space is what, oddly enough, makes the city's economy "green".
But what about the forest parks? I have come across articles by ecologists, which say that only in large forests there are sustainable ecosystems, only there real humus and similar natural things arise. To what extent does a large city need a forest park?
- Of course, the Moscow forest parks should remain inviolable: Sokolniki, Losiny Ostrov, Bitsevsky Park and others. This is what a large metropolis can be proud of. But to make a large city hostage to the insanity of its citizens on the farm dream would be rash. The struggle for greenery in the city should not only not hinder the compaction of buildings, but, on the contrary, contribute to it. If we talk about the city quarter, then it is useless to imitate the forest there, it must be preserved outside the city and, reasonably compacting the city, not to step on it with loose suburbs. This, in particular, is taught by the classical tract on human ecology by B. B. Rodoman's "Theory of the polarized biosphere".
– I terribly dislike Soviet neighborhoods, so I cannot but agree with your position - I want to remake and reconfigure them. Although not everyone will agree with me here. The intellectual conjuncture in relation to modernism is also changing. Guidebooks write about him, monuments are increasingly seen in his works, and not only in unique buildings, but also in microdistricts too. Many would like to keep the cheryomushki.
- Yes, I myself suddenly "saw", made out some houses that seemed to me ordinary and unworthy of attention …
How do you feel about projects for the reconstruction of five-story buildings, such as in East Germany - now everyone knows such examples well - instead of completely changing the pattern of modernist buildings?
- I have seen wonderful projects for the reconstruction of five-story buildings in Russia, in Krasnodar, for example. It seems to me that five-story buildings are the ideal material for reconstruction. Not all. There are some completely mossy series, not monuments to modernism, they stand like barracks near the Moscow Ring Road, isolated. They don't create any quality. And there are five-story buildings in the Akademicheskaya area, in the Central District. Cheryomushki is an absolute monument, it must be preserved. In the Akademicheskaya area, the Universitet metro station, a wonderful environment can be created on the basis of five-story blocks. Equipping with lifts, perhaps one additional floor on top, or it can be solved in some other way. I am absolutely sure that the potential for reconstruction in relation to five-story buildings is enormous.
The main problem is the 16-storey housing estates, some of which may become a social nightmare in 20 years. Such monuments of modernism will definitely not be called.
You say a lot of interesting and reasonable things, but everything happens a little differently. Why do you think? Can the gap between experts and decision-makers be bridged at all?
- The problem, in the broad sense of the word, is the absence of local self-government in Moscow. This is an extremely important thing, and we have absolutely lost it. A modern metropolis does not live without local government at all. The city always and everywhere lives on rather tense disputes. And in our bureaucratic culture, there is always a desire to get away from contradictions, to conceal the conflict, in no case to allow a public dispute. The dispute, the abuse you will hear now unless at public hearings - and even then, if the "scriptwriters" from the bureaucracy do not block open opinions. The culture of reconciling interests through an active, sometimes very vocal presentation of one's opinion has almost completely disappeared. Meanwhile, a constructive conflict is an excellent means of identifying problems, agreeing positions and resolving contradictions.
The city is a counterpoint. In the city of polyphony, you have to hold the rhythm in each hand like a jazz musician. This system cannot work exclusively according to strategic plans, it is alive, it can be customized, but managing it is a utopia. Customization Tool - Local Government. There is no life in the centralized administrative vertical-power variant. You can't imagine anything worse for Moscow than such a centralized management. Yes, in a normal living city, this is simply impossible. He immediately freezes, begins to take revenge with traffic jams, public discontent.
In connection with the renovation, people who have never attended political rallies have become more active …
- HSE conducted a study: of those people who were at the previous, not June 12, but the previous rally on Sakharov against renovation, most of them (about 2/3) had never been to rallies before. They came for the first time. The city takes revenge for blindness and unwillingness to conduct a dialogue with people.
On the other hand - and we just discussed this at the defense of student coursework - we have a serious institutional and social problem: in Moscow, only 10% of copyright holders are ready to use their rights of owners, 90% do not want to. They have the opportunity, but do not want to.
Now in Moscow there are, in my opinion, one or two unique cases when residents said - leave us alone, we will repair our house ourselves, order a reconstruction project, move into temporary housing, then return to the reconstructed house, then move to it for that the same place, we will order a planning project, we will order an architectural solution, we will coordinate it with neighboring plots, we will do everything ourselves, we have such a right. Let's find ways. Nobody can refuse them. By law, they have this right. In one case, these are two houses, in the other, one house with a large adjacent territory. It is fantastic. This is how it should be. But there are very few of them. If instead of 10% there were 40% active copyright holders, then everything would be different. With such and such a powerful people it would be easier both to develop town-planning regulations and to insist on them.
Moscow is more populated than Kazakhstan. The metropolitan area of Moscow is almost Canada. One regional level of power is not enough here, but it is as if everyone has forgotten about the values of local self-government. Election of the mayor, the city Duma - all this is important, but there is also "grass roots democracy." Now there are active municipal deputies, if as a result of the elections this year in Moscow an active corps of municipal representatives is formed, it will be great. In fact, active municipalities are beneficial to both the mayor and the entire central city government, because with their help problems are brought out and easier to see. Collection of material. It is much easier when everything is in full swing, and you see and understand everything. And so suddenly they decided to do good from above - and now, there are demonstrations.
You can understand why the authorities are afraid of municipal deputies - because they can go into politics and will be uncontrollable
- What do you mean unmanageable? It was still not enough for the deputies to be governed. They can be limited by law and by their voters and only by them. And in Russia, local self-government is separated from the state by the Constitution (!), It has nothing to do with it at all, it is an institution of society. Now, with the help of all sorts of political tricks, they have actually made it a continuation of the vertical of power, but in fact, the Constitution directly says the opposite.
Local self-government bodies can be determined by the population as it wishes. Municipalities may not have their own local parliaments, they can solve all local issues at meetings, for example. Local life is not a political story; it develops around a positive local agenda. This is even stronger. Limitation of issues of improvement and housing and communal services in this case is a blessing. The confrontation between Yabloko and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation at the local level is not interesting for the city. In the Moscow City Duma, of course, this is the way it should be, and the more such contradictions there are, the better. And at the local level, I would like it to be different: people are for or against a specific project or zoning regulations. I do not like infinity buildings, we change the regulations of the PZZ - this is local policy.
I would say that it has to do with the DNA of the whole organism. I would like to recall the old word "pluralism". If it is not at the top level, then there will be no municipal self-government, because the system is arranged either this way or that way. We are all trying to invent a hybrid system, so that this is above and that is below, but it does not work
- I agree. But let's take the example of the Zemstvo. There was such a happy moment in our history, when, under the conditions of a unitary state, a fantastically high-quality institution of local self-government developed, and a very interesting one, of a Russian style. Not Jeffersonian territorial democracy in the literal sense of the word, but local democracy with the intersection of estates and territorial representation, with an understanding of how to harmonize interests. It was a heavenly period for local government - until 1917. Then the Bolsheviks cleaned everyone out, because they realized that this was the most dangerous opposition for them. Local historians were first shot, then all the zemstvo leaders. They tried to erase the Zemstvo completely. This culture was completely blasted out in our country.
And she was reputed to be one of the best in the world. Moscow received, if I am not mistaken in 1913 (the anniversary of the House of Romanovs), a gold medal in the competition of cities in Europe, as the most comfortable and well-governed city at the local level - not through the city police, but through local zemstvos. That is, even in a unitary state, this is possible.
But you're right, it's DNA. It seems to me that Moscow, as a big city, suffers greatly from the lack of strong local self-government. By definition, a city cannot be ruled, the city government can be an influential part of it, but nothing more. It needs governance, not government.
Monetarists speak well about this - the famous economist Milton Friedman, who created the monetary theory of economics, openly stated, for which I respect him very much, that professional economists, no matter what they think about themselves, do not understand anything in economics, and even do not think about economic dirigism. The only thing you can lead, Friedman said, is the amount of money that you throw into the economy. Only control over inflation, nothing else. Go and do management, printing money, the rest of the market will adjust itself. It is clear that this theory has its limitations, it is rather a manifesto for a practical politician, but as a concept it is very strong. Do not try to manage, influence only what you can. We have made a PZZ, imposed a grid of legal zones and regulations, introduce the coefficients of the ratio of residential and non-residential buildings, limit the number of storeys, influence the setting of tariffs. That's all, then live on discussions within the institutions of local and territorial public self-government.
In other words, a politician cannot pretend to organize the city at his own discretion?
- The author's position in relation to the city is unacceptable. Neither the mayor nor the town planner can have an author's position. The architect who is constructing the building may have it. And then with some reservations. And in relation to the territory, to the community of townspeople, there can be no author's position at all. Territory is polyphony. If a person wants to make the city in his own way, then he, apparently, Campanella, or Plato. And for a practical modern politician, this is immediately disqualification.
An object of such a level of complexity that the author's position immediately turns into social engineering. Which entails limiting the freedom of people. Why urbanism is close to me - it sets the boundaries of social engineering, gives an understanding of the city as a complex social “system”. This kind of town-planning "monetarism" with an attempt to tune, influence, but not manage. In traditional democracies, this happens by itself. It's more complicated with us.
The "author's" position dominates in authoritarian countries. However, Baron Haussmann spent six years persuading the Parisian owners of commercial, residential and other premises to agree to compensation. For this, he appointed a public advocate (ombudsman). He also tried to persuade the municipalities to join the new Paris. Some I could persuade, some were not. La Villette, which is now part of Paris, then, for example, refused; there were holes in the territory of consolidated Paris at the beginning of its history. Haussmann began to redevelop Paris very gradually, through much persuasion, and it took years before Haussmann decided to act. It is strange, as if he was a friend of the Emperor Napoleon III, had a colossal administrative resource. He could have demolished everything, and no one would have said anything, but he didn’t do anything like that. Ironically, he went down in public history as a man who almost outraged Paris. In fact, he was very delicate. Compared to the current Moscow renovation, the Ottoman reconstruction is simply a triumph of the authorities' respect for human dignity. And by the way, I must say that Luzhkov's renovation of five-story buildings was somehow very quiet, without a broad media campaign and without sharp protests.
I repeat, Moscow really needs renovation and reconfiguration of "loose" built-up areas. But if you enter it badly, you can discredit the idea itself, then it is possible that in 20-25 years you will have to start renovating the same territories again. I would not like to discredit the topic, it is actually important and Moscow will live with it for decades, if not centuries.
