Citizens as Customers: Final Report

56
ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНАЯ ПРОГРАММА 2011/12 STRELKA EDUCATION PROGRAMME 2011/12 RESEARCH REPORT CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS

description

Final report of the Citizens as Customers Studio, Strelka Institute for Media, Design and Architecture, 2011/2012

Transcript of Citizens as Customers: Final Report

  • 2011/12

    STRELKA

    EDUCATIONPROGRAMME2011/12

    RESEARCH REPORTCITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS

  • RESEARCH REPORTCITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS

  • ,

    , , ; , , ; , , ; , , ; , / ; , , ; , ,

    - , ; , ; , Prefab XXI; , , International; , ; , McKinsey, -; , , International; , ; , , ; , , ; , -; , , ; , - HyperIsland; , ; , ; , ; , , ; , McKinsey, ; , , ; , Odblokuj; , , ; -, RGI International; ,

    DIRECTOR David Erixon

    SUPERVISORS Anastassia Smirnova, Kuba Snopek

    STUDENTS Nat Chamayeva, political sciences and PR specialist, Moscow; Blazej Czuba, researcher, St. Petersburg; Matiss Groskaufmanis, architect, Riga; Alexandr Novikov, architect, Minsk; Daliya Safiullina, architect, Kazan; Olga Sarapulova, architect, Ufa; Anastasia Sheveleva, architect, Volgograd

    EXTERNAL EXPERTS Vasily Auzan, management consultant; Oleg Bayevskiy, deputy head of Moscow General Plan Institute; Alexander Berzing, architect, author of "Prefab XXI" concept; Anna Bronovitskaya, art historian, editor of Project Russia magazine; Anna Chin-Go-Pin, marketing director, RGI International; Alexandru Deregatu, McKinseys Marketing Analytics Group, New York; Peter Djuk, specialist on ecological architectural materials, MARCHI; Yefim Freidine, architect, urbanist; Yuri Grigoryan, architect; Bart Goldhoorn, architect, curator, founder of Project Russia magazine; Marlena & Marek Happach, curators, Odblokuj foundation, Warsaw; Krzysztof Herbst, sociologist, member of Ursynw microrayon project team, Warsaw; Valeriya Knyazeva, specialist on sustainable architectural materials, MArchI; Denis Leontiev, architect, consultant; Alexey Levinson, head of socio-cultural research, Levada-center; Paul McCabe, marketing consultant, HyperIsland; Dmitriy Narinskiy, head of Russian Urban Planners Association; Vadim Novikov, senior research fellow, Academy of National Economy; Vladimir Orudzhov, head of Mazhino housing construction factory, KROST; Ricardo Pinho, environmental engineer, specialist on waste management; Denis Romodin, historian of architecture, SovArch project curator; Maik Seidel, architect, specialist on plattenbau, Berlin; Nikolay Shmuk, developer; Peter Sigrist, architect, researcher of Moscow public space, Cornell University; Sergey Sitar, architect, architecture critique; Alex Sukharevsky, partner, McKinsey Russia; Hubert Trammer, architect, specialist on prefabricated mass housing, Warsaw; Sandra Vandermerwe, business consultant, expert on customer capitalism; Alexander Vysokovsky, dean of Higher School of Urban Studies; Dmitry Zadorin, architect, expert on prefabricated housing in Russia

  • , .

    . , , , , , , . , 2030 , , .

    - , , , . , , , , , , . , , , .

    , , , , . :

    CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS

    In the course of six months our studio has researched the problem of the urban structure known as the microrayon an invention of Soviet modernism comprising a complex of apartment buildings, bounded by highways, with a system of public services supposed to satisfy residents daily needs. In the last half century, the microrayon has come to be an integral part of the Russian urban landscape. We looked at the microrayons historical roots, documented its achievements and failures, and also closely inspected how it functions today, how people live there and what is going to happen to it in the near future.

    More than 80 million Russians are currently impacted by the quality of life in microrayons. It is an incredible number, and one may say that thefuture of Russian cities is largely dependent on how the microrayons evolve.

    A substantial number of microrayons are about to come to the end of their projected lifespans. In the next 20 to 50 years, there will be a huge need for renewal and new buildings will become of primary concern for the state, the municipalities and for citizens.

    The current approach to renewing microrayons is based on the idea of incremental improvements. In the absence of political, economical or social will for strategic change, microrayons still largely function as they use to, while a lot of social and commercial services have been removed from these areas during the transition from a planned economy to a market economy.

    Microrayons were, and are, considered to be low cost, but only construction costs are traditionally taken into account. In reality, withall sustainability aspects completely overlooked, cheap microrayons are very expensive to maintain: over time they inevitablybecome ahuge burden for the city and its citizens.

    Our studio took a closer look at the whole contextual issue of microrayons, explored more transformative and systematic approaches to increase the overall wealth creation and quality of life.

    The key question was: How can we improve quality of life while decreasing lifetime costs and build a much better eco-system with

  • , , , , , , , ..?

    , (Customer Focus methodology), , . , , , , . , , , .

    !

    a win-win situation for everyone involved: citizens, builders, the municipality, suppliers, investors and small businesses, etc.?

    In our work we use a Customer Focus Methodology that gives usin-depth understanding of customers values and beliefs, and provides the tools to locate value gaps and determine where waste comes from in various systems. Generally applied in cutting-edge market analysis, this methodology also proved to be very effective in combination with urban research and projective thinking, reinforcing our projects with strategically important insights and giving a basisfor our holistic approach.

    In a situation that may seem hopeless to many, we now see huge potential in redesign and metamorphing.

    Student projects investigate various aspects of this microrayon potential: from extrapolation of current trends to the problem of decision-making and social involvement, from design issues to new patterns of co-habitation. We envisage this studio work as a start of a continuous exploration on how we can build affordable housing in a much more financially, environmentally, socially and culturally sustainable way.

    Join our exploration!

  • This book is designed for personal, non-commercial use. Youmust not use it in any other way, and, except as permitted under applicable law, you must not copy, translate, publish, licence or sellthe book without our consent.

  • CONTENTS

    STUDIO WORK: FACTBOOK 2

    STUDIO WORK: METHODOLOGY 4

    DR. CRISIS, OR: HOW WE LEARNED TO STOP FAKING AND KILL THE MICRORAYON Natalya Chamayeva, Olga Sarapulova 6

    RE-BRIEFING KHRUSHCHEV'S DREAM Matiss Groskaufmanis, Blazej Czuba 28

    CITY OF ACCESS: TOWARDS THE NEW ORDER OF THINGS... Anastasia Sheveleva 50

    TRANSITIONAL MICRORAYON: CUSTOMER FOCUSED HOUSING MODEL FOR MOSCOW Alexander Novikov 64

    UPCYCLING MODEL: REEVALUATING WASTE IN RUSSIA Daliya Safiullina 78

    1

  • STUDIO WORK

    Factbook

    Microrayon factbook is an outcome of studio strategy which prescribed first months to be devoted for constructing profound awareness of the subject. Historical background of mass housing in Moscow and Russia as a whole, international context of 20th century housing, prefabrication technology and other chosen subjects were covered. The factbook is to be perceived as basis for further research of the studio. Being an ongoing rather than finished product, the scope for further additions to the factbook expands as more discoveries have been made during further research.

    8 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 9

    1. Definition of microrayonMicrorayon is a relatively closed spatial unit bounded by highways, with a developed system of internal driveways. It provides a system of public services to satisfy daily needs of citizens. It is a primary unit of contemporary urban residen-tial development in Russia (mostly on the free territories).

    Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary gave the following definition: Microrayon is a complex of apartment buildings and systems of institutions of cultural and community services that meet the daily needs of the population. It is located on the territory adjacent to the highways, but which has no transit roads. Micro-rayon includes kindergartens, nurseries, schools, stores of essential goods, gardens and sports grounds.

    2. Origins of conceptThe problem of improvement of residential areas has received considerable attention before the war. Already in the 30s, architects and builders were able to raise and resolve such problems as the creation of houses with beautification, land-scaped yards and gardens.

    In the prewar period, a number of research institutes was working on hygienic requirements. Together with archi-tectural and design workshops they were researching the organization and improvement of residential areas in terms of creating there the best conditions of ventilation, insula-tion and so on.

    In the postwar years, the question of the most appropri-ate organization of residential development and establish-ment of certain service facilities in a systematic way was raised in a very urgent manner. This was caused by terrible housing conditions in the postwar cities.

    In 1945 46, the Committee for Architecture at the Council of Ministers of the USSR held a competition for the projects of residential neighborhoods. The very idea of the contest was born in the atmosphere of liberalization of social life in the last years of the war. One of the motives of liber-alization was a stream of information about mass housing in Britain and the United States. At that time, some domestic experience was re-evaluated. In fact, most English-speaking sources referred to the development of integrated residential quarters, carried out by Giprogor, Institute of Communal Hygiene and Kharkovs Giprograd in the early 30s. The term microrayon was chosen as a symbol of a new principle of urban design. Its goal was to provide comfortable services to all population groups. The term was borrowed from old Giprograd studies, where it was used as a replacement of an English concept of neighborhood unit.

    All publications about foreign city planning were se-

    verely criticized. A debate unfolded in 1945 - 46 around the competition for the preparation of pilot projects of resi-dential areas. It was the first post-war attempt to approach the creation of a wholesome living environment. From the beginning it was marked by a desire to move away from the Anglo-American theory of neighborhood and to fit it into the overall concept of the Soviet city. During 1947, the word microrayon gradually disappeared from the professional vocabulary, because it was perceived, as a semantic analog of neighborhood, if not as an exact translation. Attempts to use the idea of microrayon at the XII Plenum of the Union of Soviet Architects board, held in July-August 1947, was also received negatively. Reference to Western city design-ers, who spoke about the priority of Soviet architects in the development of a residential neighborhood at the end of the war, were now considered as a scandalous political provoca-tion. Soviet experience of the late 20s - early 30s, which really had a lot of value, went into oblivion again, and referring to it became dangerous. Along with the ban on the study and use of Anglo-American practice of housing construction, the search for new social and functional basis for the urban envi-ronment was interrupted. Despite the urgency of the public service districts organisation, these ideas were not in favor when the practice of building, city design and more generally, the future of postwar Moscow were discussed.

    The exception was made for an experimental construc-tion of 4-8-storey type houses at Peschanye streets in 1947 - 1948. This new district included large parade square, parks, cinemas, schools, medical institutions, shops and other businesses services, which were placed in the ground floors of houses. The district of Peschanye streets preceded the creation of microrayons. This innovative project was even awarded with the Stalins Prize.

    As for the majority of new construction in the postwar period of 1945-49, most of it was done using a method of ribbon-like construction, or just individual fragments inserted along the existing highways and streets. Multi-storey houses were built along red lines. They played a role of barriers, protecting the street from inner yards, or vice versa. During these years, improvement of internal spaces became quite formal, in reality. Design of buildings, yards and public areas was carried out independently.

    Only starting from 1951-1952, a shift in the practice of residential construction became marked by a shift towards a more complex planning. The most progressive aspect of con-struction in 1951-52 was this transition from fragments and ribbons to a quarter-baced city design. Residential areas of 6 to 12 hectares with houses built mostly aroung the perimeter

    Microrayon (definition)By Nat Chamaeva

    became basic units of city planning.As a rule, first floors of houses were used for food, retail,

    community and cultural services, such as cafeterias and restaurants, food stores and manufactured goods shops, fashion studios and repair shops, hospitals, cinemas, muse-ums, childcare centers, etc. Actually, it was more like what you want and however you want, often regardless of peoples real needs and negative side of placing many of these types of facilities in residential buildings. The non-systematic placement of these commercial and public enterprises and in-stitutions, together with the poor quality of their operation, led to a decrease of comfort of living in such houses. Some-times, special standalone units with cultural and educational services was built in the quarters. But since these services were mostly episodic, their location did not follow any law-governed system. Public life also put forward the need for clubs located near residential areas (for discussions, lectures, etc.). Usually such red corners were arranged somewhere in the quarter, but they didnt have enough space to accom-modate all. In fact, they were intended to serve no more than one house or very few of them.

    An early example of complex beautification were hair-dressing saloons built everywhere around the city. Architects presented the project: a green glass cube with several doors.

    Municipal authorities liked the idea, so it was decided to build such a cube in each district. These two-storey buildings appeared everywhere. They housed more than just beauty sa-loons: repair shops, consumer services centers, savings banks, post o!ces, shops of every kind, restaurants, laundries, kitchens, bars, fashion studios, libraries and small executive committees were located in these community centers.

    Still, the mechanical planning of city quarters resulted in a number of disadvantages, most of all the division of a single community by a network of transit streets. It was nec-essary to find a better solution for the city planning, and that was the concept of microrayon.

    3. Establishment of microrayonsIn mid 50s, finding a fast solution for the urgent housing problem became the main concern for policy makers and experts. The turning point was the All-Union Conference of Builders in December 1954, where the existing practice of building cities was severely criticized. In particular, it was noted that architects do not pay enough attention to create a rational system of public services within residential areas, and a number of projects feature unsatisfactory approach to the deployment of cultural institutions and community services.

    A project for Nizhny Novgorod (former Gorkiy) by Giprogor, 1936

    NAT CHAMAEVA: MICRORAYON (DEFINITION) 152 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 153

    19571962 ., , . , . , .

    , . -7, II-32, 1605-, 1 -300, II-35 .

    . -, . 1960 , , .

    , 1971 . . . 60-. 1960- 912- . II-49 I-515, 1-605.

    NB.

    - : I -

    , .

    II - , , ;

    III - , , .

    . .

    , - . , - .

    , ! , , 125 .

    16- 1970 . .

    . 30 3 - 1980 . , 16- 3-16 44, 22 .

    (19701985 .) . : 3, 22, 30, 31, 42, 43, 44, 46 ( ). .

    - - - .

    Prefab periodsBy Ruslan Sabirov

    . 3, 30, 44, 46,

    . .

    - - 4- , 90-. - , , .

    References: http://mgsupgs.livejournal.com/202550.html

    Amount of sqm of microrayons of different generations

    Percentage of different generations in overall number of microrayons

    RUSLAN SABIROV: PREFAB PERIODS24 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 25

    Housing estate is a group of residential buildings, usually multi-storey, built as one development and serving a large group of residents. The term often refers to social housing with rent-controlled apartments, as that was a prevailing ten-ure system in 1960s and 1970s from which period most such housing estates date from.

    United Kingdom Council EstateIn the United Kingdom housing estates were council founded developments frequently built using prefabricated construc-tion methods. They were often results of a slum clearance policy and were built in inner city areas vacated by demol-ished fabric. Most of the estates quickly dilapidated and resi-dents groups houses there became the most disadvantaged parts of the British society. A recent study shows that a per-son born on the estate after 1970 has 11 times less chances to be employed than an average Britton and twice more chances to be su!ering from mental diseases.

    Examples: Churchill Gardens, London Park Hill, She"eld

    See also: MOSS, S., The Death of the Housing Ideal, The Guardian,

    Friday 4 March 2011 MUIR, H., A Vision for Housing and a Grim Reality, The

    Guardian, Thursday 22 September 2005 Slums in the sky, The Economist, 29 September 2005

    France Grand EnsembleGrand Ensemble are large satellite districts built on the peripheries of cities, built from 1953 to early 1970s to cope with overcrowding and deteriorated state of existing hous-ing stock. The urban idea was to create autonomous entities with their own hospitality and shopping amenities, closely based on CIAMs objectives. Some 250 grand ensembles were built in France and now constitute 18% of the overall housing stock.

    Failure of social engineering and mismatched social poli-cies led to quick deterioration of estates that quickly began being called quarters sensibles; the usual association with them is concentration camp cities, danger zones housing exiguity and riots.

    Examples: Le Mirail, Toulouse Sarcelles, Paris

    See also:

    ASTIER, H., Frances City Policy in Tatters, BBC News, Monday 7 November 2005

    BLAIN, C., Team X, the French Context, Faculty of Archi-tecture TU Delft.

    Germany NeubaugebietExamples: Ahrensfelder Terrassen, Berlin-Marzahn

    Poland Wielki Zespol MieszkaniowyPoland as a country under Soviet influence followed closely the guidelines coming from the metropolis, which led in late 1950s to introduction of prefabricated building methods. Wielki Zespol Mieszkaniowy, commonly called Osiedle, is an urban entity close to the Soviet Microrayon or Frech Grande Ensemble. Unlike the Frech counterpart it did not face social problems, having a diverse population and usually su"cient connection with the rest of the city. The greatest boom in housing came in 1970s from which decade most Osiedles date from. 1990s saw almost immediate shutting down of panel factories and return to masonry or in-situ concrete methods, mostly due to slower scale of private building by developers and changing expectations of customers.

    In the first decade of XXI Century most of the buildings underwent regeneration that would usually include replace-ment of windows , new thermal insulation and frequently re-placement of heating systems. Since Osiedles still dominate the market in many Polish cities and they were traditionally an egalitarian space, they retain a high mixture of social groups and tenure forms and are still frequently occupied by middle classes.

    Russia MicrorayonA microrayon is an autonomous urban neighbourhood built in the Soviet Union after 1954, usually comprising of prefabri-cated blocks of flats. It remains a standard administrative unit in post-Soviet cities. It was defined as an area large enough to allow for all the basic daily requirements of residents to be met within its boundaries and should have its own kindergar-ten, a school and shops. A typical module would comprise of apartments for 8,000-12,000 residents and be part of a larger raion of 30,000-50,000 people, which would feature addi-tional services such as a cinema and sports facilities.

    Microrayon still retain its role as a main organiser of Russian cities and unlike many other countries is considered a relatively healthy environment by its residents and a typol-

    Housing estateBy Baej Czuba

    ogy is being built across the country.

    Examples: Cheryomushki 9C Khavsko-Shabolovsky Severnoe Butovo Severnoe Chertanovo Yasenevo

    Reasons for failure

    Social PolicyHaut du Lievre in Nancy of the late 1950s began its life as an object of pride of the whole city; designed by a renowned UNESCO Palace architect, Bernard Zehrfuss, the new district was a solution to the post-war housing shortage in the city, and the modern buildings surrounded by vast greenery con-trasted with decaying old centre. First residents of communal apartments were lawyers, doctors and richer working class families, all fascinated by high-standard flats with central heating and modern bathrooms. The situation, however, changed dramatically in 1965 when as part of the rejuvena-

    tion project of the city centre thousands of inner-city inhabit-ants from troubled communities were relocated to Haut de Lievre. The middle classes quickly moved out of the district, vacating enough flats to allow the municipality to place new-coming immigrants in their former homes. Within a couple of years the dream suburb became a ghetto of the poorest.

    The story of Haut de Lievre is not much di!erent from many, if not the majority, of modernist estates. Built as large, heavily subsidised municipal projects, they did not always attract wealthy social groups and the majority of the stock operated as social housing. Most British housing estates were created as a result of slum-clearance of the most deprived are-as of cities, with often least able residents being moved to the new estates. Those new district where communities reflected the whole spectrum of society usually managed much better and some to this day remain sough-after locations. Carefully stratified community was one of the most successful features of Tapiola new town.

    Peripheral locationIt did not help the fate of grande ensembles and other con-tinental new districts that they were usually built on cheap green fields outside of the city. It took many years after com-pletion of housing projects before transport infrastructure

    Robin Hood Gardens, 1960s-1972, Architects Peter and Alison Smithsons; the only large realised housing project of the main member of Team X that revolutionised mod-ernist approach to housing. About to be demolished

    BLAZEJ CZUBA: HOUSING ESTATE 166 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 167

    Microrayon scaleThe size and definition of microrayon changes more drastically- from 6-12 thousand people in 1965 to 25-35 thousand of people for microrayons in Moscow City in 2006 (based on 1989).

    However, while average provision of population with total residential floor area grows from 9 sq.m per person in 1962, 14.5 square meters per person in 1975 to 18 square meters per person in 1989,density of residential development in microrayon remains approximately within the same boundaries for the same number of floors: (from 311- 355 ppl/ ha in 1962 and 366 ppl/ ha in 1975 for 5-storey development) and (400-466 ppl/ ha in 1962 and 455 ppl/ ha in 1975 for 9-storey development) to unspecified 200- 420 people per hectare for mixed development as established in 1989. Average provision of population with total residential floor area today is precsribed according to a particular category of comfort defined in 1996. This unequivocally demonstrates the process of gradual raising the bar of the level of comfort in the USSR and relative liberation of regulations upon switching to capitalist market economy.

    Building RegulationsTitle

    SNiP II-.2-62.Planning and devel-opment of residential areas

    SNiP II-60-75.Planning and de-velopment of cities, villages and rural settlements

    SNiP 2.07.01-89*Planning and devel-opment of urban and rural settlements

    MGSN 1.01. 99Moscow City norms and regulations for planning and devel-opment

    Category II-.2-62

    II-60-75 ,

    2.07.01-89*.

    1.01. 99 .

    Microrayon gross density( )

    400- 466 ppl/ ha (9-sto-rey; 4200 sq.m/ha); 311- 355 ppl/ ha (5-storey; 2800 sq.m/ha)

    455 ppl/ ha (9 storeys; 6600 sq.m/ ha)365 ppl/ha (5 storeys; 5300 sq.m/ ha)

    200 ppl/ ha- 420 ppl/ ha defined according to morphotype*

    Microrayon develop-ment( )

    typological projects relevant to local climatic and byt conditions and demographic make up

    based on unified or segmented intoclusters of residential buildings architectural and spatial organi-zation considering environment and local climate conditions

    n/a City planning character-istics are determined by placementin the city

    Red line( )

    incase o!set from the main street red line min 6 meters entrance can be facing residential street

    o!set from the main street red line min 6 meters; residential street min 3 m

    if first floor residential- with an o!set from the red line. if retail in first floors- can be on the red line. can be on red line due to local traditions

    n/a

    Average provision of population with total floor area( )

    9 sq. m/person12 sq. m/ person ( for estimated period ( ),15 sq. m/person( for reserved territir-ies estimation beyond estimated period)( )

    14,5 sq. m/ person ( for first phase of construc-tion); 16 - 18 sq. m/person( for estimated period);23 sq.m /person ( for reserved territiries estimation beyond estimated period)for regions with average family size less than3 ppl- max 18 sq.m/person; for average family sizeis more than 4 ppl- min 16 sq.m/person

    18 sq. m/person for density calculations;population of city de-termined based on city development projection data considering demo-graphic forecast of natural mechanical population growth and commuting patterns ( )

    according to category of comfort defined in( 3.01-96)1st category- no more than 50 sq. m per person,2nd category- no more than 30 sq. m/person

    Microrayon Public Center( )

    club facilities and library, canteen, laundry, retail shops: grocery, industri-al products, barbershop, tailoring, housing and utility o;ce

    Public centers of local importance may serve several microrayons located within the territory bounded by main streets of city importance.

    n/a The share of nonresiden-tial construction in the amount of microrayon development shall not exceed 25%

    Distance between buildings

    based on fire regulations according to degree of fire resistance (table 9)

    based on solar insola-tion norms, if 2-4 storeys- min 20 m between long sides, min 12 between side facades

    .9.19if 4 storeys and higher-min 20m between long sides, min 10m between side facades. can be less if meet insolation requirements

    defined according tomorphotype

    Size of land (includ-ing built-up area) around houses/ per apartment ( , 1 )

    n/a for houses higher than 2 storeys

    no more than 150 square meters

    30-60 sq. m (excluding built-up area) for up to 5 storeys block housing (rec-ommended prilozeniye 3)

    n/a

    *Moscow has the status of a historic city, in accordance with the laws of the Russian Federation and Moscow City Statute. According to MGSN urban development in Moscow City should not lead to a distortion of objects of cultural heritage, as well as their perception. Certain criterias are defined arrocding to morphotype of existing built environment. See the list of morphotypes here.

    DALIYA SAFIULLINA: BUILDING REGULATIONS COMPARISON CHART

    96 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 97

    IntroductionThis is the article about Yakov Belopolsky, Moscow architect who started his career in the Stalin period and built his last buildings in the 90s. Soviet and post Soviet historical periods had its own goals in the field of architecture. They can be characterized by its own architectural approach and creative opportunities given to an architect. How did architect show himself, how did he act in a specific situation? And what did he finally come up with after the USSR collapse when archi-tects found themselves in a creative freedom that they have never experienced before?

    Stalin periodThe o!cial goal of Stalin-era Empire Style architecture was to glorify the Soviet Union. It was designed by the former constructivists who did not willingly relinquish their ideas. Boris Iofan was one of the ex-constructivists. He took Yakov Belopolsky into a team for designing the Palace of Soviets. This was an influential period for the younger architect, who adopted Iofans design approach and constructivist thinking, which can sometimes be seen in his later works.

    Khrushchev period and laterStruggle against frills was a formal rehabilitation of avant-garde that architects greetedwith enthusiasm. But finally the whole period turned into an exile of the profession. The main focus of Soviet architecture of that time was on mass produced housing districts. Administrative approach in the city development that was set by the country leaders gave the leading role to constructors and set strict design regula-tions. That was a hard period for architects that Belopolsky was trying to avoid by starting teaching at MARCHI. But he finally never left his job. His main works of that time were

    huge residential districts Konkovo-Derevlevo, Belyayevo-Bogorodskoye, Teply Stan, Yasenevo, Southern and Northern Butovo, that were built up with typical houses. Some of them consisted of the repetitive microrayons, sometimes distin-guished only by the facade color. They are usually blamed for its huge scale and anonymity of the depressing surround-ing. But at the same time he designed such daring projects as Izvestiya Publishing House or World exhibition in Moscow that became an icon of its time, Institute of Information with its human focused inner space and delicate usage of natural light, memorials such as Minor Land in Novorossiyskor Monument-Museum in Lenino where symbols became a basis of the expressive architectural compositions of the buildings or forward looking Dwelling house of a new type ND-10 that proposed a completely new principle of a city development and included Soviet Union into a world architectural think-ing process of that time.

    Its hard to believe that all these microrayons and all these singular projects were designed by one person simul-taneously. But going into details we find that architects job in the field of mass produced housing was diminished to a process of creating masterplan patterns out of typical build-ings. Also the usage of random building series allowed to design interesting complicated formal volume compositions but the lack of human scale made it unpleasant to live in. Architectural competitions, public buildings and memorials was a small field left for architects regular job. That is where Belopolsky can be judged as an architect. Microrayons can be rather considered to be a creation of a Soviet system with its well-defined goals.

    The Soviet ArchitectComment by Alexander Novikov

    Conclusion Post Soviet periodUSSR broke down and released architects from ideological pressure. Most of the architects seemed to go crazy by the emerging opportunities and dived into postmodern experi-ments. Following his own direction Belopolsky designed Park-Place that was so pure and distinct in its modernistic style with even no attempts to be something of the fashion of that days. It has something in common with Japanese metabolic architecture of the 50s. But what was the reason to go in this direction in the 90s? Did he take it as a time for im-plementing older favorite and unrealized ideas such as ND-10 that he has been designing for three years? But the architec-ture of Zenithbusiness center seems to be something of a new generation, something that has never been implemented in Russia before. Followed by advanced ideas of that time it has all the characters of a foundationally new approach. Twenty years have passed but even today it remains one of the finest examples of contemporary Moscow architecture.So here it is standing on the back of mass produced housing districts being Yakov Belopolskys last word on the back of the others words, representing his architecture that finally became free and so distinct from everything that has been done by him before.

    World exhibition in Moscow. Ordered contest. The second prize (1961)

    ALEXANDER NOVIKOV: THE SOVIET ARCHITECT 272 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 273

    In the 1960s, the economist Philip Kotler changed the per-ception of marketing.

    For him, a product is more than physical. A product is anything that can be o!ered to a market for attention, acqui-sition, or use, or something that can satisfy a need or want. Therefore,he identified five levels of product:

    Core Benefit the fundamental need or want that con-sumers satisfy by consuming the product or service

    Generic Product a version of the product containing only those attributes or characteristics absolutely neces-sary for it to function

    Expected Product the set of attributes or characteris-tics that buyers normally expect and agree to when they purchase a product

    Augmented Product inclusion of additional features, benefits, attributes or related services that serve to dif-ferentiate the product from its competitors

    Potential Product all the augmentations and transfor-mations a product might undergo in the future

    The transition to a new level means an increase in the value of goods for customers and together they form a hierarchy of value to consumers. It is based on the pivotal advantage - that the main service, or purchase acquired by the customer [1]

    , , . , . : , , , . , : ,, , , , . : , , -

    , , , , - , . : , ,

    ( , , , ), , . , , .[2]

    , - ,

    Patterns of customer valueBy Olga Sarapulova

    . ( ), , , ( ).[2] , , , , , , , - .[3]

    , .., , . , , . , - , .[3]

    , , , ..[4] - , (, ), , , , , , . , , , , ( ) ..

    , . , , . , , .

    ,

    . 10 20%.

    . , .

    , -, , , , , , , , , .

    , , , , , , , , , , .

    , , , , . .

    , ,

    OLGA SARAPULOVA: PATTERNS OF CUSTOMER VALUE116 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 117

    This series of articles on the theme Ideal vs. Real is trying to show a correlation between the ideal concept of a socialist city declared by the mass media and the historically estab-lished reality of everyday life. All that is called ideal in these articles, because to us it is false and utopian, was, to the mak-ers of it, true and existent. The real part of each article refers to the results of introducing the ideal plans into daily life.

    In the case of the microrayon the ideal plan consisted of well-connected assumptions about the future fueled by the good intentions of the planners to change peoples lives for the better and create a new way of living in the USSR. Despite good intentions, none of the plans could achieve the ideal: unpredictable, random things happened that revealed vulner-able holes in the plan. However, a plan is useless if it is not dedicated to a great ideal: without the mobilizing power of dreams, a massive building campaign is not worth it.

    1. Experimental spaces Under one roof No transport in microrayon! Flats for newly-weds Flats with furniture

    One of the main ideas of the microrayon was to make a car-free space. All the infrastructure objects were to be in a pe-destrian area, and underground parking lots were to be built for car owners. However, the concept was not implemented in full. A similar fate befell other interesting ideas, like con-structing of two-floor apartments in panel houses.

    2. Interior Beauty Into Daily Life! Household advice Dining table

    Following the death of Stalin, even the interiors of new apartments bore the mark of Khrushchev implementing de-stalinization policy. With the help of mass media, books and national exhibitions, the state cultivated good taste in the Soviet people. Nothing superfluous!; In new apartments-new furniture! these are the mottos of the period. However, the reality made its corrections: either new pieces of furniture were impossible to find or they were too expensive despite the e!orts of the state to make them cheap and available.

    3. Obshchepit Mass foodservice Vegetables vs meat

    The state planned to make eating out widespread, conveni-ent and a!ordable to such an extent that it would mostly free people from cooking food themselves. According to this idea, the Khrushchev period saw the design of unbelievably small kitchens in the houses. Yet, these small kitchens are still pre-sent in our lives, while all the other attempts to implement the idea proved to be unsuccessful. The choice of meals in gas-tronomy shops and cafes was very limited, and lunches and dinners o!ered by family canteens never became a!ordable.

    IDEAL vs REAL: introductionBy Anastasia Sheveleva

    IDEAL

    Usually services (grocery stores, shops, canteens etc.) in mi-crorayons are either situated on the ground floor of the build-ings or spread around the whole district. Both are extremely inconvenient for the residents because in one case it could bring noise and disturb people who live on the first floors. In the other case one has to make quite a tedious journey to purchase everything one needs.[1]

    One has to do a lot of things: buy groceries in the shop, semi-prepared products in the household kitchen, get children sandals repaired, drop o! cloth at the laundry. And of course stop by the hairdresser to brush up before Sunday. To get it all done one has to spend three-four hours. [2]

    That is why an experimental concept of the public center in microrayons was developed in 1960s. In such a place every-thing would be under one roof: hairdressing saloon, valet shop, canteen, household kitchen, grocery shop, club, gym etc. In this scenario every resident of microrayon (even one living in the outskirt) would be able to reach this center in a five minute walk. In addition this concept would save money on construction.[2];[3]

    The described concept in general was known as Kombinat bytovogo obsluzhivaniya- public amenities and personal service center.

    RealThe idea was very promising and successful but the big ques-tion is why in these service centers state related departments (post o"ce, bank, health clinic, o"ce of civil registration etc.) could rarely or never be found. Adding those services to an under one roof concept would be even more time and energy saving for residents of microrayons.

    Over time, due to changes in economic and social situa-tion doma byta were gradually phased out by hypermarkets, malls and private sector providing services to people. Today we have a huge amount of delinked firms spread around the city that are very pricy. [4] Right now we are where we have started. It is time and energy consuming to run errands.

    References: [1] 1959. The place you live in... Ogoniok, June 28, 13 [2] 1962. Under one roof. Ogoniok, May 13, 14 [3] Osterman, N. 1966. Ogoniok,

    January 9, 26-27 [4] :

    . Last modified October 13, 2008

    IDEAL vs REAL: under one roofBy Anastasia Sheveleva

    Drawing by S. Moiseeva

    ANASTASIA SHEVELEVA: UNDER ONE ROOF 288 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 289

    Early microrayon design in RigaThis article is synthesized from extracts of book Contempo-rary Architecture in Soviet Latvia [1] (1966). Few principles and ideology of designing microrayons in 1960s Soviet Latvia (and other Soviet repulblics accordingly) are exposed.

    The new urban logic of microrayon

    Along with fundamental changes brought in at late 1950s, the notion of ideal urban block also was changed. Emphasis was shifted from qualities of particular building to spatial quali-ties of overall composition of buildings or the masterplan. As for one of the first experimental microrayons in Riga and Soviet Latvia, genskalna priedes (first stage completed in 1959), there were four fundamentally new principles regard-ing its spatial composition: The original landscape is preserved - trees and topogra-

    phy is left as intact as possible, careful attitude towards environment is advocated,

    Buildings are arranged into clearly readable clusters or groups,

    The arrangement of buildings has resulted in broad, open courtyards and decent daylight exposure for all apart-ments

    Services (shops, kindergartens, schools etc.), for the first time, are located separately. Instead of being placed in ground floors of residential blocks, they are placed in vast spaces between the buildings.

    Unity in aestheticsDespite the new, exceedingly rational direction of Soviet architecture in late 1950s, aesthetics in general were still important, and any minor changes in mass produced panels were celebrated by architects, attention was paid to nu-ances of external finishes.[2] For example, kindergartens and

    schools were built from mass-designed projects that were not related to particular series of housing units. However, unity of aesthetics were achieved by using the same external clad-ding material as housing blocks (e.g. white brick)[3]

    Spatial variety

    By summarizing current e"orts in microrayon construction, the author concludes that future developments are to be de-signed in close relation between building and urban scales.Apart from attention to landscaping, much greater variety in terms of residential block volumes is suggested - slab and point blocks of di"erent heights should be mixed in order to achieve greater spatial diversity. Also free standing buildings are advocated as a mean to expand options of spatial configu-ration of microrayon.[4]

    Microrayon design in Soviet RigaBy Matiss Groskaufmanis

    Architects impression of new microrayon Agenskalna Priedes (source:Laikmetiga Arhitektura Padomju Latvija, p20)

    New forms of communal livingEmphasis on new developments on communal living is also obvious. As an example, residential disctrict Zone A project is described from two contrasting proposals:

    References: [1] O. Zakamennijs, Laikmetg Arhitektra Padomju

    Latvij (Riga: Liesma, 1966) [2] Laikmetg Arhitektra Padomju Latvij, p22 [3] Laikmetg Arhitektra Padomju Latvij, p20 [4] Laikmetg Arhitektra Padomju Latvij, p27

    Proposal by Latgiprogstroj institute emphasizes organization of family life and suggests that the level of comfort is more important than size of apartments (source:Laikmetiga Arhitektura Padomju Latvija, p20)

    Proposal by G.Melbergs explores improvement of service functions and ways how consolidate residential and service into single spatial unit. (source:Laikmetiga Arhitektura Padomju Latvija, p20)

    MATISS GROSKAUFMANIS: MICRORAYON DESIGN IN SOVIET RIGA

    70 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 71

    This article is an overview on Moscow masterplan develop-ment during the Soviet and Post-Soviet periods. It starts with a short analysis of the main tendencies and changes. Projects overview is represented in a chronological order. Every pro-ject is represented by its masterplan and additional informa-tion. This overview accounts masterplan as one of the main characteristics of microrayon development history.

    The overview starts with constructivism period. Various microrayons masterplan patterns were used. Apparently that was a result of a certain administrative freedom in housing development. Moreover some microrayons were built as a result of the competition wins (Havsko-Shabolovskii Resi-dential District).

    The main element of masterplan development during Stalins period was a closed rectangular courtyard that repeat-ed itself along the site (Residential District in Ugo-Zapad).

    The Khrushchev epoch started the new era in masterplan development. Masterplans consisted of rows of typical panel houses that were set around the courtyard Novie Chere-mushki. Kvartal #9. Later there were attempts to create more complicated compositions (Himki-Hovrino Microrayon).

    Panel houses turning sections showed new opportuni-ties. The masterplan composition became more complicated and got to the central focus of architects creative energy (Ivanovskoe, Veshniaki-Vladichino). Then the variety of building series allowed to create sophisticated compositions in volume playing with di!erent height (Yasenevo). But still the basic principles of masterplan organization were usu-ally based on the same principles where buildings where set around the courtyard. This idea almost disappeared in Severnoe Chertanovo where buildings where set in a natural composition.

    Later masterplan composition got back to something of Stalyns closed courtyards (Olympic Village).

    The Soviet period can be seen as a gradual evolution of microrayon masterplan. There were certain periods that could be characterized by specific tendencies in masterplan composition that were dependent on technology evolution or leaders decisions. Today all possible patterns are being used and it is di"cult to find a certain tendencies in its develop-ment. Miscellaneous developing companies design a variety of microrayons. That distinguishes it from the late Soviet period where there was an entity of ideas and intentions. Todays situation could be even compared to early construc-tivism experiments where there was a search for the optimal decision that showed random masterplan compositions.

    Masterplan analysis shows the slow growth of the size of housing districts from 1920s to 1960s. In 1960s the growth

    started to increase rapidly and reached the size of towns by 1980s. Then it started to slow down and then decreased to almost a starting size of the beginning of the century.

    The housing height increased slowly till 1970s where it reached a certain height and remained stable until now.

    Main Stages of Microrayon masterplan develop-ment (after Dmitry Zadorin) Early 50-s Kuntsevo, Leninsky av. Gagarinskoe Stalins

    block development with brick houses Late 50-s Kuntsevo Stalins block development with

    panel houses Early 60-s Yugo-Zapad rows of housing 1966 Strogino Gate free site development 1982 Krilatskoe free use of all possible patterns 1990 Severnoe Butovo back to block development

    Main Stages of Microrayon masterplan develop-ment (after Denis Romodin) Early 50- Leninsky av. Stroiteley str. (. ) block-

    development Mid. 50-s Novie Cheremushki. Kvartal #9 (N.Osterman)

    blockdevelopment Late 50-s Himki-Hovrino (K.Alabian, N.Selivanov)

    rowso)ousing Early 60-s Novogireevo-Ivanovskoe (, )

    free site development 70-s Yasenevo (Yakov Belopolsky)

    Moscow Microrayon Masterplan Development By Alexander Novikov

    1. Residential Quarter #1295

    Floors Area Built area Density4 51 500 13 400

    Year of construction: 1926Architects: ?

    Residential Quarter #1295 has a multilayered masterplan composition. The distance in-between the buildings is very small that makes the courtyards cozy.

    ALEXANDER NOVIKOV: MOSCOW MICRORAYON MASTERPLAN DEVELOPMENT 250 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 251

    1990s:

    Till early 1990s, similarly to other Soviet republics, in Latvia microrayon is owned and looked after by the state. Residents voluntarily cooperate on maintenance. During early 1990s

    the process of privatization takes o! and By the end of decade almost 50% of total housing stock is made avaialable for privatizaiton. Privatizing apartments also leaves an e!ect on land ownership - due to di!erent forms of controlling adjaced land plots, the entity of microrayon is sliced up into a plot-by-plot-a!air. Land plots acommodating residential buildings in microrayon are either: a) collectively purchased by owners of privatized apartments, b) purchased or obtained by other private parties, c) or remaining in property of the municipality.

    Models for ownership and maintenanceUntil 2010 when a single company was formed, fifteen separate housing administration authorities were responsible for maintaining, upkeeping and developing housing stock of

    particular districts of the city. Sooner than 6 months after beginning of privatization, new owners were encouraged to agree which model of property management to pursue:

    Ownership of microrayon in RigaBy Matiss Groskaufmanis

    Till early 1990s private property in microrayon does not exist.

    Microrayon as single entity ceases to exist when privatization starts in early 90s.

    a) in case if no collective agreement is made or before it is made, every new owner is obliged to sign a contract with the current management body. However, that means almost no force of action or initiativ

    b) alternatively, it is enough if more than 50% of owners agree to form a registered union that would either maintain the property itself or delige a managing orga-nization or authority. Such scheme requires extra effort but also helps to defend common interests of residents

    2000s:By 2000, over 75% of total housing stock is privately owned and 70% of that is still maintained by housing management authorities, however private sector managment companies are on the rise. Widespread battle for space and courtyards is soaring due to real estate market boom in second half of the decade.

    Rise of maintenance companiesTo large extent still being relics from the Soviet regime, housing administration authorities are underperforming at many cases. By the end of 1990s that gave rise to private sector property management companies that o!ered lower prices and more financial transparency. At the same time, loose regulation has made real estate management the next market where to get easy money after 2007 crash of real estate market.

    In 2011 new scandal unfolds about lack of transparency regarding maintainance costs of property upkeeping. Certain companies are suspected to be overcharging their customers. A crowd sourced website is created to collect data and expose anomalies[1] .

    Collective initiativesIn order to switch with private sector maintenance company cooperation between residents is required. Also cooperation between residents gives more flexibility on maintenance

    costs and ambitions of property upkeeping and improvement. As a registered organization, owners can take bank loans for major improvements of the building and surroundings, accordingly, cooperatives can initiate larger projects, such as thermal insulation programmes that have become increas-ingly popular in recent years. EU subsidizes 50% of the cost. The other 50% is usually borrowed from bank. Recently the Ministry of Economics simplified the process of applying, no need for establishing cooperative anymore - in order to initi-ate such programme, residents must establish an assembly.

    Occupied courtyardsDuring the housing bubble of 2005-2008, a battle for vacant courtyards was soaring, particularly in microrayons adjacent to city centre - developers were buying up available land between buildings, schools and playgrounds. Public was space is privatized, norms are bypassed, mysterious master plan initiatives are prsented to residents. In 2007 a law is passed requiring to hold public debate about development plans that are concering neighbouring reisdents.Compromise as the main objective is rarely achieved and the power of reisdents opinion is marginal, the law is considered to be favouring developers.

    References: http://karstierekini.lv/

    Crowdsourced map of bills paid by residents

    Example of thermal insulation project of multi-apartment house

    Example of a new development in a courtyard

    MATISS GROSKAUFMANIS: OWNERSHIP OF MICRORAYON IN RIGA84 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 85

    Introduction

    Yakov Belopolsky (1916-1993), an outstanding Moscow architect, is well known for his daring winning projects in architectural competitions of that time, human focused public buildings and at the same time huge dwelling districts in Moscow such as Konkovo-Derevlevo, Belyayevo-Bogorod-skoye, Teply Stan, Yasenevo, Southern and Northern Butovo. Being a dedicated to architecture person he had to deal with the current situation where he designed residential districts with typical housing series where masterplan was sometimes the only focus of creative energy.

    This article gives a short analysis of Belopolskys main creative works and description of the situation around him. Projects overview is represented in a chronological order.

    I believe in a talented artist who will not make architectural rub-bings of ouvrages or copy Corbusier. He is looking for his own

    way (permanent search!) possessing an entire arsenal of tradi-tions and modern art. It is the search that may lead us to architec-ture, which will be original, singular, highly artistic.

    Yakov Belopolsky

    Career and WorksHe started his career in a group of an outstanding Soviet ar-chitect B. Iofan where he took part in the design of the Palace of Soviets in Moscow (1937-1941). He won many architectural competitions. His winning project for the Memorial ensem-ble in Treptow-Park made him famous in the age of thirty. His winning project for the World exhibition in Moscow (1961) was widely recognized even abroad. He was twice awarded with the main prize of the country the Lenin prize.His creative works are amazingly diverse: Institute of Information and Fundamental Library of So-

    cial Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences in Moscow (1960-1974) in its approach in design of the inner space can be compared to the best examples of Finnish archi-tecture. Its human focus can be seen in the scale, details and usage of natural light.

    His conceptual projects Monument-Museum in the settlement of Lenino in Belarus (1968) and Memorial complex To Heroes of the Civil and Great Patriotic War in Novorossiysk (1972-1982) are based on symbols.

    Dwelling house of a new type ND-10 (1965 1968) is based on metabolic idea of the housing structure that develops in space and time. This project includes Soviet Union into a world architectural process of that time.

    World exhibition in Moscow (1961) was an outstanding and daring project that developed the avant-garde ideas of the past in a symbolic composition.

    Izvestiya Publishing House (1968) in its minimalist ap-proach and space organization can be compared with the finest examples of Japan contemporary architecture.

    Zenith Business Center (1991-1995) that has become the last Yakov Belopolsky project is based on a strong visual representation of the form and usage of the new materi-als of that time.

    Projects of Ya. Belopolsky as a face of the Soviet epoch show the development of architectural thought in the Soviet Union as well as the main world architectural influences of that time. His creative works moved from Stalin Empire style to Modern and then to Postmodern architecture.Constructiv-ism influence can be clearly seen in the works of di!erent periods.

    Yakov BelopolskyBy Alexander Novikov

    Belopolsky and position of a Soviet architectIn 1954 Khrushchev made his Struggle against frills speech.

    As a reaction in 1955 Yakov Belopolsky started his peda-gogical activities in MArchI.

    Roman Kananin, student and associate of Yakov Belopol-sky: That was a hard period for architecture. Thats when Yakov Belopolsky decided to start teaching. Later situation was changing for the better. But it took years.[1]

    Yuri Ilyin-Adayev, student and colleague of Yakov Be-lopolsky:

    Struggle against frills!In the army of professionals it was greeted with enthusiasm.

    Representatives of proletarian advance guard out of their number started to smash down with inspiration the ceramic and concrete components prepared for front facing. They also in-cluded the creators of Moscow style, who dreamed of becoming the continuers of modern postconstructionism founders. Naturally, we were among them. Such decision was not a talented forecast of Stalinism epoch evaluation. It was cultivated. By teachers. And primarily by Ya.B. Belopolsky. We accepted the struggle announced by the party not only as return to advance guard of the 1920s-1930s but also as joining the creative team of world com-munity, but actually

    In practice all further activity of Soviet architects in the so-called genuine architecture was subordinated to the ban imposed on architecture. Opposing this rule, some were able to construct a real thing, which now is referred to as a minument but it was quite rare. We also fought under the command of Yakov Boriso-vich. But sometimes, under the influence of fantasy or foolishness or protest or strong drinks, there appeared an idea of flee. And one day it happened to me[2]

    Roman Kananin explained that architect could not do a lot at that time. There was a strict technical design as-signment that had to be fulfilled. Administrative approach. Yasenevo and Teply Stan were built up with typical buildings. But however there was a possibility for creative work in a composition and masterplan.

    It is common knowledge that switching to industrial construction we admitted a bad practice, especially in districts of mass development. There is still a standard of thinking, we used to orient to model design, which requires, as we now all know, a basic restructuring In the past we yielded professional positions failing to preserve aesthetics and yielding the leading role to con-struction organizations The result is as follows: many districts have been spoiled and we have to think seriously how we are going to correct this situation?![3]

    There are also few stories from Yakov Belopolskys biog-raphy which show the position of an architect in the Soviet Union:

    Monument to Oswiecim victims in Poland. International contest (1960).

    For the Open international contest for monument in Oswiecim over four hundred projects were submitted and exhibited in the Union of Architects. Nikita Sergeyevich

    Khrushchev visited the exhibition and approved it. The sub-missions were to be shipped to Poland. But due to some unac-countable reasons they were two days late and not admitted to the contest.

    Youth Palace at Komsomolsky prospect (1972-1982).Yakov Belopolskys group won the competition for the

    Youth Palace at Komsomolsky prospect in 1972. But the initial design di!ers completely from what was finally built. During a short interview Roman Kananin, student and as-sociate of Yakov Belopolsky, explained the situation. The secretary of the city committee did not like the style of the initial design and after the long negotiations we were forced to change it to something more of a Washington style.[1]

    This story is especially interesting because Yakov Be-lopolsky was a well known and recognized architect at that time who was awarded with the main prize of the country the Lenin prize.

    Projects

    1. Diploma Project on the subject of Library Building (1937)

    The building has a compact symmetrical solution. Its dimensional layout composition is based on the forms of classical architecture.[4]

    ALEXANDER NOVIKOV: YAKOV BELOPOLSKY 264 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 265

    1. 1990 ., , . , , , (), (). [1]

    , , . , . , , . , 3-4 , , .

    90- . , . , . 15%. 1997 . , , . 90- . , , [2]

    1.1. , , . . - , ( 29-35%), , .

    , , .

    , 2011 , , -1, -3, -155, -5, -6 .

    , , , . , , (- ). , . , , 20 50 .

    2. , . , , , , . . , , - -

    Development of housing market in MoscowBy Olga Sarapulova

    OLGA SARAPULOVA: DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING MARKET IN MOSCOW

    . , , - , . , , , , . , .

    , : , .

    . , - . . . .[1]

    3.

    . 18 , 2008 1999 .

    , - 2011 . 1,23 .. , , 2,5 . . 52%. , 3- 2011 . 329 . . .

    3.1

    4. , , , 1980 13,4 21,1 2006 . , . 12 .. 21 74 ., 65 , 62 , 37 . , .[3]

    - . ., 104 ( 2112 .). [4]

    4.1 , , , , - . .

    32 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 33

    Modernism sculpted European cities throughout the first decades after the Second World War. Urban planning pro-moted by CIAM and the Athens Charter of 1933 redefined the European city model, resulting in creation of mono-function-al districts and urban ghettos of failed mass housing projects of 1950s and 1960s. Initial ideas of the modernist movement aimed at improving living conditions of urban populations and providing with su!cient isolation, hygienic standards and places of recreation. However, a mass-scale functionalist product did not find easy understanding among the public and early 1950s showed reform of the movements principles to more community-oriented planning. Despite ideological change mass housing projects across Europe produced early Athens Charter-inspired districts that did not cope with needs of inhabitants and early on started deteriorating.

    Relevance in context of microrayonsBuilding industry of the post-war Europe was predominantly occupied with building high-rise housing estates for nearly three decades until the second part of the 1970s. This was a result of housing shortage in principle not much di"erent from the situation in the Soviet Union at that time. Poli-cies that di"erent capitalist countries at that time followed modernist objectives of CIAM and their predecessors, which highly influences production of Soviet microrayons, even if economic and political situation in Western Europe allowed for move diversity and individuality of build developments.

    Changing social and economic conditions and failures on policy levels quickly made those buildings unfit to peoples needs and large regeneration programmes have been in place since 1980s, which resulted in a number of strategies to cope with deteriorating fabric and communities. Microrayons of Russia are in need of both social and physical repair and certain approaches from highly developed welfare-driven countries may help define needs of Russian housing.

    ContextThe XIX Century city in the first half of the XX Century was synonymous with plaque and poverty, Victorian terraces or German tenements were incubators of crime and filth. The Athens Charter of 1933, a bible of the Modern Movement in Architecture, proclaimed that building density there was too high, hygiene non-existent, lack of recreational spaces and housing next to busy and dusty roads created unhealthy life-style, perimeter blocks and especially courtyard apartment buildings did not allow for su!cient insolation of dwell-ings, and those were too far away from work places, which required great commuting.

    Ideology

    CIAM and a modernist cityBuilding industry of the post-war Europe was predominantly In the troubled environment of overcrowded XIX Century cities Modernists claimed not to be interested in aesthetic values but purely functional solutions that could improve lives, the first time where architecture and planning was given such a great role. In the wake of the new era a reaction-ist result of an international competition for new headquar-ters of the League of Nations resulted in a tumult among young radical architects leading to establishment of what was to become arguably the most profound and the most destruc-tive architectural foundation of all times. CIAM (Congrs International dArchitecture Moderne) was founded in 1928 in La Sarraz to become a definitive theoretical body for the post-war reconstruction of cities. Made up of international network of young architects, mostly from Europe, it pro-claimed to revolutionise the way cities function and in many respects succeeded. Their manifesto, the Athens Charter, first announced at their fourth congress at SS Patris, an American ship on its way to Athens, introduced guidelines for a new city type.

    The main objective was to create functional zoning in cities where living, working, recreation and circulation would all be separate. Dwellings would be placed in most favourable areas in towers surrounded by vast areas of greenery where only schools and sports facilities were allowed. The key idea for that was to improve hygiene by introducing new norms of insolation for each apartment. Industrial zones were meant to be separate from housing, however, close enough for work-ers to reach them easily. Vehicular movement was separate from pedestrian one, adapting to a new era of car dependence.

    References: LE CORBUSIER, Towards a new architecture, Dover

    Publications, 1986 LE CORBUSIER , The Athens charter, Grossman Publish-

    ers, 1973 MUMFORD , E., FRAMPTON, K., The CIAM discourse on

    urbanism, 1928-1960, MIT Press, 2002 LENT, Rolen van, The Rise and Fall of CIAM Urbanism,

    The Urban Question, 2008, Amsterdam

    FallWhen Europe had to rebuilt from the ashes after the Second World War CIAM and modernists were chosen to draw plans of reconstruction. However, at that point, in 1950s and 60s,

    Modernist mass housing in EuropeBy Baej Czuba

    when European cities were being surrounded by a sprawl of standardised sleeping districts and a web of motorways, ideo-logical foundation of that process was falling apart.

    CIAM after the war grew increasingly less radical in its objectives mostly under an influence of a British MARS group, once an extreme think tank that hoped to redefine London as a linear city, inspired by a Soviet Nikolay Milyutin. Previous principles of Le Courbusier and Wells Coates were exchanged by a more postmodern line of J.M. Richards who believed in architecture that was closer to the vernacular, aiming at the populace to accept it; he suggested a route closer to Gunnar Asplunds and Sven Markeililuss Swedish brick-faced, pitched-roofed and picture-windowed work. Soon after, at the sixth CIAM congress in 1947 was the main aim reformulated as to work for creation of a physical environ-ment that will satisfy mans emotional and material needs.

    The greatest criticism happened a little later, in 1953 at the ninth congress at Aix-de-Provence when British Peter and Alison Smithsons and Dutch Aldo van Eyck rejected the doctrine, undermining the functionalist segregation of a city and pro"ering a more cellular approach of di"erent densities, as well as looked for a unit larger than a family for general planning. They later became Team 10 and discarded both the New Monumentality of MARS and Swedish modernism of

    Richards. Their contextual modernism was a precursor of postmodernism, taking its lessons from the historical city and its organic structure.

    Even, if an o!cial end of CIAM happened in 1959 when the congress was demised, already throughout the 50s ideo-logical foundation of the movement and International Style it created was crumbling. Surprisingly, though, that was the time when all the major housing policies were introduced and 1950s and 1960s and brought the largest and soon the most detested new towns and districts.

    References: KIMMELMAN, M., Towers od dreams: one ended in a

    nightmare, January 25, 2012, The New York Times MUMFORD , E., FRAMPTON, K., The CIAM discourse on

    urbanism, 1928-1960, MIT Press, 2002 LENT, Rolen van, The Rise and Fall of CIAM Urbanism,

    The Urban Question, 2008, Amsterdam

    Mass productionThe Athens Charter stated that modern methods of construc-tion would be necessary to reform cities, however, Le Cor-busiers own book on Mass Production Houses (1919) much earlier on did state the goal :

    Ville Radieuse was a utopian city of Le Corbusier based on CIAM ideals

    BLAZEJ CZUBA: MODERNIST MASS HOUSING IN EUROPE 192 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 193

    Year Architect Floors Built area Site area1929 N.P.

    Travin5-7 117 230m2 24 100m2

    Khavsko-Shabolovsky residential complex created a prec-edent of residential housing scheme decades before Moscow saw its first territories covered by repetitive patterns of industrially produced panel building districts. Being located close to the very core of Moscow, Khavsko-Shabolovsky is part of neighborhood that is made up of early 20th century architecture diluted by later additions of almost every decade. The scheme itself was a result of competition held by Associa-tion of New Architects (ASNOVA) which in 1927 was asked by the Moscow City council to develop a residential complex. Key requirements were compact construction, low cost and aesthetic quality - intentions not too remote from those behind late 20th century housing blocks.[1] The competition was won by proposal of architect N.P. Travin - similarly to other attempts of 1930s residential schemes where master-plan creates great portion of overall quality, Travin created a strange mixture of regular architecture and irregular streetscape by extraordinary zig-zag layout of five to seven storey buildings. While being inventive in masterplanning, the buildings themselves were a sign of typization and pure rationale, for instance the 45-degree positioning provided not only specificity to exterior space but also maximized solar exposure to apartments. Therefore it can be said that the proposal embodied both - repetition in terms of architectural form and human-scale site specificity in terms of its master-plan - quality that most of mass produced residential districts from 1960s onwards are lacking. (See also Microrayon master-plan development )

    Urban scaleKhavsko-Shabolovskii is located in eastern part of the Da-nilovsky district. Built in Being close to the core of Moscow, neighbouring area is rich of examples of early 20th century architecture, although there are countless overlays of later additions. Surroundings consists of residential and industrial functions. The landmark of the area - Shukhov broadcasting tower - is located in close proximity to Khavsko-Shabolovskii.

    Connection to transport systemAt the time of construction there was no connection to Mos-cows metro system, so tram and bus connections had to be relied upon. The nearest metro station - Shabolovskaya - was built in 1962, however, due to technical issues it was opened in 1980. The second nearest station - Tulskaya was opened in 1983.

    Block scaleTwo adjacent schemes - Khavsko-Shabolovskii residential complex and Khavsko-Shabolovskii communal housing, both built in early 1930s, can be looked upon as contrasting exam-ples of Soviet approach to the housing block, before Stalins classicism or Khurschevs rationalism prevailed.

    Khavsko-Shabolovskii residential complex

    Khavsko-Shabolovskii residential complex was an outcome of competition conducted in late 1920s. The key requirmens for the complex - compact spatial arrangement, low cost of construction and certain attitude towards aesthetic expres-sion - are not to be seen too remote from key characteristics of housing derived from Khrushchevs manifesto. Originally the scheme suggested fi ve to seven storey apartment houses, a kindergarten and a boiler room. Despite the compactness of the site buildings are laid out in a way that maximizes pen-etration of sunlight and creates picturesque landscaping and organically separated courtyards.

    Microrayon situations:Khavsko-ShabolovskyBy Matiss Groskaufmanis

    Kremlin River MKADBitsa park YasenevoSevernoe Chertanovo

    Cheremushki 9CKhavsko-Shabolovsky

    Severnoe Butovo

    Block Scale

    Urban Scale

    Khavsko-Shabolovskii communal housing

    Was one of experiments of communal living. An U-shaped building that accomodates living spaces, canteen, club, day nursery, kindergarten, gym and other service functions, allhosted under the same roof. Similar to other examples of same ideology, such as Narkomfin, the concept communal liv-ing was not accepted by residents, and the communal housing scheme gradually turned into a mixed apartment and o!ce building as it is today.

    Kindergaden & facilitiesVisiting the site gives no exact clue of where the original kindergarten was located. A later addition of kindergarten to the block from from 70s or 80s is evident. Playgrounds as seemingly new additions are dispersed across the coutyards with no apparent logic.

    ParkingParking strategy is not evident, similarly to the rest of Moscow, vehicles are occupying almost any spare slot in the internal walkway and courtrayd system of the scheme. Also it appears that today there are many overlays to its original structure that disrupt the original intentions of its function-ing , for instance playgrounds in courtyards have become fenced islands that are one of the only car free zones left.

    References: http://cocomera.livejournal.com/142545.html

    MATISS GROSKAUFMANIS: MICRORAYON SITUATIONS: KHAVSKO-SHABOLOVSKY58 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 59

    Historical contextBefore mass housing construction began in late 1950s - early 1960s, typization was already widespread in low cost & low quality dwellings, such as barracks. In reality, until 1930s, barracks were the main way to solve housing crisis in Mos-cow. They were not designed to last long, and their quality deteriorated rather fast.

    A more advanced version of barracks typology was proposed in type projects for workers settlements, such as a barrack settlement for workers near Los railway station near Moscow. Best examples of these dwellings featured well maintained yards with playgrounds, lots of greenery, and a network of social infrastructure institutions, such as a school, a kindergarden, a medical clinic, etc. Needless to say, almost all of such construction was made of wood, with oc-casional use of bricks for foundation and concrete for floors.

    As for a search for a better alternative, there were some theoretical attempts, but very little practical fruit. For example, in 1938 a closed competition for type (tipovoy) pro-ject of a housing section was held by Peoples Committee of Communal Services of RSFSR instead of an open competition as it was intended. None of 53 projects were considered by the jury to meet competition criteria. No awards were assigned. Projects by architect Gokhblit and Barygin were considered to be satisfying. And nothing was built.

    Already in 1940s, there was some housing construction using type models of two- or three-storey apartment houses built in Moscow suburbs ant satellite cities. They were much better than barracks, had centralised heating and water sys-tem, but the amount of them built was not enough to satisfy the hunger for dwellings that people had at the time.

    Realized attempts to introduce alternative type of housing with better quality apartments and infrastructure remained mostly experimental. These experiments, such as commune houses, dormitories and new apartment blocks, were mostly individual projects that were usually produced only once, and never worked at a mass scale. But the research was on-going. A good example of what was done can be found in the projects of architect Burov, the author of three series of experimental prefabricated large panel houses in Moscow, including his famous house at Leningradskiy prospect (1939-1941).

    Another example of early developments in typization is the microrayon prototype at Peschanye streets in Moscow built in 1948-1955, where a series of apartment houses was built, following one type model, but with slightly di!er-ent facades. It is believed that some type solutions that this experiment proved successful were used in the construction

    of extra-comfortable elite housing in Moscow that took place until the beginning of Perestroika. These houses used a lot of prefabricated materials and equipment, but they were still built in brick, and they were very expensive, in comparison to barracks.

    Another experiment worth mentioning is the construc-tion of large-panel four-story carcass apartment houses in Khoroshevo-Mnyovniki in 1948. It was one of the first real-ized experiments in practical use of prefabricted panels in mass housing. Despite all the mistakes and structural novelty of the construction, its erection took 90-100 days, and second series took only 60 days to build. This was a breakthrough achievement, compared to more than 1 year taken by the traditional construction of a 35-40 apartments house made of brick. Engineer Vitaliy Lagutenko, who later developed K-7 prefabricacted large-panel 5-storey type housing widely known as khrushchevka, was actively involved in this sig-nificant construction.

    In 1950, it was decided to stop building temporary dwell-ings, such as barracks, and find a better way to build type housing that would last longer, have a better quality, but still be rather cheap in order to solve the terrible postwar housing crisis. In 1952-1953, an architectural competition was held to define these new typologies. A lot of interesting projects was proposed, most of them o!ering building that inherited a lot from the neoclassical style, but used new technologies, such as prefabricated concrete blocks that were used similar to the traditional bricks, but allowed a much faster construction process. And they o!ered type design that could be repro-duced. However, none of these projects were realised, prob-ably due to their expensiveness, compared to barracks.

    It took for another year after Stalins death to address the challenge of a search for a type housing, and it was addressed di!erently: by typization of both housing models (series), but also the construction process, apartments layout, prefabrica-tion methods and assembling on site. This industrialization of mass housing required a fundamental change in the work of urban planning institutions that had to adopt typization as one of the milestones of their masterplans for new residential areas and microrayons.

    Mass housing typizationIndustrialisation of housing, despite all its controversies and shortcomings, was viewed as the only way to solve the prob-lem of providing Soviet families with separate apartments. In the early 1950s, it became clear that fundamental changes are needed in the approach to mass housing.

    All-Union Conference of Builders, held in December

    TypizationBy Nat Chamaeva

    A typical wooden barrack at Tikhvinskaya street, 1978

    A typical wooden barrack at Veshnyaki, 1949

    NAT CHAMAEVA: TYPIZATION 240 CITIZENS AS CUSTOMERS: MICRORAYON FACTBOOK 241

    This entry consists of abstract from Homeowners Associations in Russia after the 2005 Housing Reform (2009) paper by Rosa Vihaivanen.

    1. IntroductionSince the start of the Soviet era, everyday Russian life has been characterised by unsatisfactory housing conditions. For decades a shortage of housing forced the majority of the urban population to live in cramped conditions in communal apartments. Housing stock was owned and managed almost exclusively by the state, while new construction and main-tenance was neglected, which led to deteriorating quality of housing. The common areas of a house including staircases, lifts and courtyards were considered public property and treated as a kind of no-mans land that everyone could use but no one cared for.

    Since the collapse of the Soviet Union people have gained the possibility to own their apartments. As the next step af-ter the privatisation of housing, the management of housing is now being transferred from the public sector to the private sector. The right to own has brought with it an obligation to take care of the common areas in privatised houses.

    Reform of the housing sector continued with the exten-sive housing reform that came into force in 2005 and covered the entire housing sector. It made homeowners fully respon-sible for the management and maintenance of their property.

    2. Ownership in Soviet UnionIn the Soviet Union the state had a monopoly on housing ownership and distribution, as well as on the provision of housing and communal services. The allocation of housing by public authorities and state enterprises enabled strong control of citizens. Good citizens and merited workers were rewarded with better housing. The Soviet Union ensured its citizens housing that was almost free and tenants rights were very secure, but the price for these rights was loyalty to the state. Working and living were intertwined, which made it virtually impossible to obtain a dwelling without a job and vice-versa.

    Although the Soviet system o!cially aimed for egalitari-anism, there were definite inequalities in the system. In this sense housing was no di"erent from other goods: there was a shortage of housing as there was of consumer products and the elite enjoyed better housing and better access to goods that were unavailable to the masses.

    In order to control urban population growth, a residence permit system known as propiska was created, which tied people to their place in the countryside and restricted their

    ability to move to the city.During the Soviet era, not only the apartments but also

    the common areas of the house staircases, courtyards, cel-lars, attics, etc. were owned by the state. Private property was nationalised after the Revolution of 1917 and access to previously private courtyards and houses was opened, dem-onstrating that it was now the common property of the peo-ple. As a result, nobody felt responsible for the common areas, which were treated carelessly, as a kind of no-mans land. municipal housing maintenance was inadequate (because public sector resources were directed elsewhere, e.g. to heavy industry), and the condition of staircases, lifts and other com-mon areas became miserable, run-down and dirty.

    3. Ownership in post-Soviet RussiaSince the collapse of the Soviet Union the states monopoly position has been reduced, firstly through the privatisation of housing stock in the 1990s. The law on housing privatisa-tion in 1991 made the privatisation of dwellings possible and stated that homeowners had a joint financial responsibility to maintain common areas. However, housing management was still municipally controlled, although some residents started to form informal organisations, such as house committees, to improve the condition of their houses. Private management by homeowners became possible with the 1996 law on home-owners associations.

    Wide-scale change did not take place until 2005, how-ever, when the Housing Code stated that homeowners are joint owners of common property and thus responsible for management of the property. As a continuation of the hous-ing privatisation, the new Housing Code transferred the management of privatised housing from the public to the private sector.

    3.1. New forms of ownershipThe new legislation ordered homeowners to organise the management of multi-family buildings independently. Homeowners now have three alternatives: to (1) form a homeowners association (tovarishchestvo sobstvennikov zhilia, TSZh), (2) hire a management company or (3) manage the house directly without an association.

    The concept of homeowners associations is a novelty in Russia, although self-management of housing had existed in the country previously in the form of housing cooperatives. However, after the 1920s and 1930s, cooperatives were not a mass phenomenon; in 1990 they accounted for only 4% of the countrys housing stock. A homeowners association is by definition a non-profit organisation, established for the

    Ownership in RussiaBy Nat Chamaeva

    management and maintenance of common property in a multi-family building (Zhilishchnyi kodeks, Article 135). Although homeowners associations have existed in Rus-sia since 1996, they have become much more common since the implementation of the reform. In 2007, 35 percent of multi-family buildings in St. Petersburg had chosen this type of management; of that 35 percent, 19 percent were home-owners associations or housing cooperatives (Fond Novaia Evraziia 2007).

    Of the other two alternatives, direct management by residents is quite rare and typically opted for in small houses that only have a few apartments to be managed. Direct management means that every household makes a separate contract with the service providers. It can be di!cult to manage a larger building complex without an association or a company as there is no executive organ or account to save money for the repairs, etc.

    The management company alternative, meanwhile, has recently increased in popularity. While it avoids some of the problems present in residents self-management, such as low participation in decision-making and insu!cient knowledge about management, it does have some di!culties of its own. The market for management companies in many cities is re-stricted, so there are few alternatives for residents, and some

    of the companies in the market are unreliable and/or incom-petent. Furthermore, the management company alternative does not allow residents to participate in the management process.

    3.2. Controversy of the reformGiving homeowners responsibility for the management of common areas is likely to be problematic. First of all, resi-dents are not accustomed to taking care of their property and they lack the practical and technical knowledge to do so. In the Soviet Union the citizens role was passive and residents had very limited opportunities to improve their housing conditions. Apart from a lack of knowledge, there is also the psychological barrier created by a lack of interest towards common property. The prevailing mentality has been my house is my castle, that is, residents are interested only in their apartment and are not concerned with common areas of the building. Taking care of ones property used to end right where the proprietary right ended, on the doorstep of ones apartment. many people are not used to considering the com-mon areas as their own property, which can make it di!cult to get them feel responsible for the condition of staircases, courtyards, lifts and other communal areas. The Housing Code aims to develop the market and improve material condi-

    TSZh by Ekaterina Gavrilova

    NAT CHAMAEVA: OWNERSHIP IN RUSSIA

    2 3

  • STUDIO WORK

    Methodology

    9. Exit

    1. Find&Occupy 2.Urban