Nadir Kinosyan
Architect, doctoral student at the Cardiff School
of City and Regional Planning (Wales, Great Britain)

Over recent years Russian cities have undergone significant changes in production and consumption structures, social organization, living environment and in plan structure in general. These processes inevitably raise the issue of the future of the Russian urbanization and sustainable development of Russian cities.  As applied to city planning, sustainable development principle implies efficient utilization of resources, limited expansion of territory, reduction of transportation needs, and creation of safe and comfortable living conditions for maximum number of city-dwellers.

This plan for Russian cities can be represented at least in two possible development models. The ‘European model’ is characterized by dense population and a city centre as a cluster of public purposes buildings and living accommodations. Transport service is based on the well-developed system of city public transportation. On the other side, the amorphous American city structure is characterized by development of detached housing areas, low density of population, absence of a clear-cut city centre, and mass daily migrations between places of work, service and dwelling. Such structure is dangerous, because it creates growing pressure on the transportation system, causes dependence on a private car, destroys the historical centre, harms the environment, and leads to the increased number of traffic accidents.

Suburbanization in post-war America was the result of such factors as population growth, rising prosperity, state policy which encouraged buying detached houses, ethnic and social division, fall of transport costs, development of civic amenities in the suburbs, etc. Some of the mentioned factors exist in today’s Russia, but not in the extent that would allow full-scale suburbanization. Besides, taking into consideration huge differences between the regions, true and fair view can be given only on the basis of concrete situation analysis.
     
Material Conditions of Suburbanization

Positive economic dynamics and growth of consumption make it possible for more and more Russians to use a car and have a country house as their secondary or primary residence. Nevertheless, the level of motorization in Russia is still low. While in 2005 in the USA the number of cars per 1,000 people was 714¹, in Great Britain – 469, Poland – 323², in Russia this figure was 169³. Thus, population mobility in Russia is much lower than in the USA and the European Union. Even in the most motorized city, Moscow, the number of cars per 1,000 people is lower than in Europe. 

The average dwelling size in the Russian Federation has increased from 60.8 sq.m. (1992) to 84.5 sq.m. (2005), at the same time most city-dwellers still live in blocks of flats (77%). Archaic division into ‘city’ and ‘countryside’ housing which is used in official statistics impedes realistic estimation of suburbanization scope. Of course, in cities balance remains to be in favour of multi-storey projects. But what is happening outside the city limits, in the so called ‘cottage belts’? Neither statistically, nor administratively do these communities relate to the city; however economically and ecologically they influence it directly. While in the USA there is a concept of ‘a metropolitan statistics zone’, Russian statistics doesn’t “see” ‘cottage belts’.

The average salary of Russians rose from the equivalent of $22 in 1992 to $302 in 2005. At the same time, in 2004 25.2 m. people or 17.6% of the Russian population had an income which was below poverty level. Demand for housing is considerably limited by the fact that 80% of household income is spent on food, consumer goods and public utility services.

And finally, our country is going through a severe demographic crisis. Most cities with over one million people lose their population. City growth is achieved through the inflow of migrants. The structure of migrants’ demand for housing needs to be studied.
     
State policy

The country government connects the demographic crisis with the national housing affordability problem. President Putin in his speeches has repeatedly challenged the issue of improvement of the Russian citizens’ living conditions as one of the main methods of coping with the demographic crisis. In his annual Address the president gave the task to build not less then one million sq.m. of housing per year⁴. The top-priority national project called Affordable and Comfortable Housing for Russian Citizens is aimed at forming the market of affordable housing through increasing construction volumes and improving institutional mechanisms of residential construction. While the figures of the national project are indicated in government resolutions, it is still unclear to what city planning designs will these initiatives lead. What type of housing will be built and where? How will it affect urbanization processes in the country?

Analysis of recent political statements makes it possible to conclude that the course is set for suburbanization, i.e. development of new out-of-town territories. Thus, Edinaya Rossiya Party’s project ‘Your own house’ stakes on out-of-town low rise buildings. The party “plans to create favourable living environment for giving birth and bringing up children through development of private and low-rise housing in the suburbs”⁵.

The Chairman of the State Duma and the Head of Edinaya Rossiya faction  Boris Gryzlov believes that the new direction of city-planning should fit into the scheme ‘from cities to suburbs’. He points very clearly at the development of new territories: “There are lands in the suburbs which are not ploughed and will never be, but they are still formally considered agricultural. It is clear that nobody will seed and plow them. It’s high time to rezone such lands from agricultural to residential ones and to start building them up”⁶. According to Gryzlov, 40% of the funds allocated by the government in the framework of the ‘Affordable housing’ national project should be spent on low-rise building development⁷. The lower house of the Russian parliament has passed in its first reading a bill on low-rise residential development, which is to facilitate access to lots of land for private housing construction.
     
Situation in the Regions

We can, as an example, consider the situation at the regional level. Already in 1996-2004 the Republic of Tatarstan implemented a republican ‘national project’ – a state programme on liquidation of slum dwelling, which resulted in 48,125 families moving to new apartments. On its completion a programme was launched on social mortgage for public sector employees, young families and rural population. Thus, the federal government initiatives found in Tatarstan ready institutional base. According to Marat Khusnullin, Tatarstan Minister for construction, architecture and communal services, the republic undertook a commitment to build 2 m.30 thous. sq.m. of accommodation in the framework of the national project in 2007. It is the largest volume that local developers have ever endeavored⁸. The desire ‘to catch up and overtake’ is natural and understandable, but what qualitative effect for the city will such massive residential building have?

Today in the republic as a whole the volumes of multistory and private housing construction have practically leveled off. According to the prognosis of Tatarstan Ministry for construction, architecture and communal services, 10 m. sq.m of housing will have been built in the republic by 2011, and 4.2 m. sq.m of these (about 30 thous. houses) will be low-rise. The head of the Ministry himself has repeatedly argued for mass suburban housing construction and called cottage building ‘the growing point’ of development⁹.

General Plan for Kazan, which has been worked at since 1994, implies (in its last draft) doubling of the whole city territory – from the present 425 sq.m to 780 sq.m. Average housing size per citizen should double and account for 39 sq.m. Residential development plan (2003-2050) provides for construction of 27.36 m. sq.m of apartment blocks (70%) and 11.89 m. sq.m of cottages (30%). City space is to be widened to an area easily reached within 1.5-2 hours, where every citizen can get a land lot for house building10.
     
Effects of Suburbanization

Implementation of such large-scale plans for out-of-town construction can have negative effects. Slum dwelling programme with thousands of people moving to the periphery of the city has already caused appearance of areas with poor social conditions, increased pressure on the transportation system, and environmental deterioration. Further urban sprawl can aggravate these effects. Firstly, appearance of cottage communities will produce additional pressure on the transportation system. Every family will have to possess one or two cars; this, in its turn, will lead to increased numbers of private vehicles which will require parking places in the city centre. Secondly, these communities will cause cash outflow from the city. Besides, new territories will demand development of the whole social infrastructure – building of schools, hospitals, trade outlets.
     
***
Tendencies in Russian cities development and recent political initiatives of the federal government aimed at creation of the comfortable and affordable housing market raise certain concerns in terms of sustainability of the appearing growth model. In most trouble-free regions plans for ‘cottage’ development may result in urban sprawl. Proclamations of sustainable development are in fact advocacy of sustainable growth of consumption, which involves values opposite to the ideas of sustainable development. It should be remembered that unbalanced improvement of living standards can have long-term negative consequences. Development of new territories resulting in urban sprawl requires balanced approach.