TO NAT CHAMAEVA

ARCHAEOLOGY

OF THE

PERIPHERY

Research for the Moscow Urban Forum 2013 Curator Yury Grigoryan Project Office Vasily Auzan Taisia Osipova Glafira Parinos Maria Slavnova Natalia Tatunashvili Nat Chamayeva Literary Editors Alexander Ostrogorskiy Sergey Petrov Managing Editor Taisia Osipova Editor (English Section) Roger Connah Editorial Department MASTERSKAYA Principal Layout Dima Barbanel, Zhdan Philippov Fonts Zhenya Yukechev, Alexey Chekulaev Infographics Sergey Kalinin Campus Konstantin Lukyanov, Maxim Volhin Prepress Michail Shishyannikov Print manager Elena Kaporskaya Translation Olga GrinkrugFedor Ermoshin Daria Ermoshina Ludmila Lezhneva Stanislav Lvovsky Sarah McDowel John Nicolson Anton Razmakhin Anna Shirokova-Koens Lera Shvets Larisa Skvortsova Daria Sonkina Arina Turkatenko Svetlana Tenyaeva Clive Phillips Tatiana Voronina Aleksandra Yagnyukova Proofreading Tim Misir Sophia Lampard Printing House OOO Printmarket Moscow Sushscevkiy val 49 Printed in Russian Federation All rights reserved. Reprint of materials and their use in any form, including electronic media requires obtaining a written permission from copyright owners. © Moscow Urban Forum

mosurbanforum.ru

7

Acknowledgements 10Archaeology of the Periphery 12

BEYOND THE CENTRE

Life on the Edge — Justin McGuirk 34Challenging the Cult of the Centre — Brendan Cormier 47You’re in the Magic Wand Business, Wave it! Thinking Peripherally — Roger Connah 54World Cities Growth 62Urban Revolution — Leonid Smirnyagin 70

CHICAGO 74Retrofitting North American Suburbia: Tales from Chicagoland — Ellen Dunhem-JonesMEXICO CITY 82The Peripherization of Mexico City — Christian von WisselNeza York: From Slum to Slim. Nezahualcoyotl, Mexico City — Felix Madrazo 91SAO-PAULO 102Sao-Paulo: Upgrading the Favelas — Elisabete FrancaInclusive Urbanism in Sao Paolo — Silvio Torres 112PARIS 116Paris and it’s Peripheries — Sophie Body-Gendrot BERLIN 126Berliphery — Theo DeutingerISTANBUL 134The City Still too Big to Fail? — Onur EkmekciMUMBAI 142Twisted Peripheries: A Blob of Spit — Matias Sendoa Echanove & Rahul SrivastavaSINGAPORE 152Less Iconic, More Just — Onur EkmekciJAKARTA 162Peripheral Pressures — Deden Rukmana BEIJING 172Go Figure: When is Too Much Too Much? — Jiang Jun How the City Moved to Mr Sun — Daan Roggeveen & Michiel Hulshof 180

TOKYO 194Diversifying the Metropolis — Yasushi Aoyama

SPACED Moscow — Another Endless City? 208Terra Incognita 212SPACED: Interdisciplinarity and a Humanitarian Shift 216

ARCHITECTURE

The Mobilized Landscape 222Gridlock, the Donut and Intelligent Solutions 236Open Space 246Construction Waves 250Habitat 256Brasilia. Residential Superblocks 266Why They don’t like Walking in Tolyatti 267Open Space Planning. Interview with Nina Kraynyaya 268City of Ideas: A History of Planning 276Planning Footprints 282Surviving Landscape 284The Ground. Superpark 288

CULTURE

Modernist Urban Culture Project 296An Integrated Analysis of Social and Urban data 306Berlin: The Eccentric City 316Meta-Cities in the State of Moscow 320

SOCIETY

On the Source Data 328Mood 329Self-description of Residents 330Guests — Who are They? 332My House, My District 335Cultural Outings 338Moving Around the City 340Perception of the District 343Who Lives in the District? 347Conclusion: The City and its Flow 350

DATA

1 From Single Factors to Trend Analysis 3562 Cell Phones Instead of Passengers 3563 Urban Talk Exchange 3674 Methods of Data Processing 372

9

ECONOMICS

1 Introduction 3762 Moscow’s Spatial Pattern 3773 Principal Imbalances in Moscow's Spatial Economy 3794 Theoretical Model of Cyclic Degradation of Moscow’s Periphery 3875 New Model of Consistent Development of Moscow's Periphery 3886 Conclusion 394

POLITICS

Towards the Superpark 398Introduction 398The Driving Forces of Dormitory Moscow 399Social Atlas of Moscow 400The Productivity of Microdistrict Landscapes 408Brief Conclusions 414Ecology of the Periphery 418

Around Edges — Yuri Palmin 426Preservation. Catalogue of the New Heritage 446Moscow. Life Beyond the Centre — SPACED Research Group 472Bibliography 484

Moscow Urban Forum — for creating a platform for a pilot multidisciplinary urban research in Post-Soviet Russia.

Olga Papadina and Varvara Melnikova —who coneived of and inspired “The Archaelogy of the Periphery”.

Alexey Levinson, Alexei Muratov, Olga Vendina, Alexey Novikov. Grigoriy Revzin, Sergey Sitar, Natalia Tatunashvili — curators and co-curators of the SPACED research group — who have contributed their expertise to our investigations.

Brendan Cormier, Leonid Smirnyagin, Tatiana Nefedova, Vladimir Kaganskiy, Jun Jiang, Daan Roggeveen & Michiel Hulshof, Sophie Body-Gendrot, Matias Sendoa Echanove & Rahul Srivastava, Christian von Wissel, Orhan Esen, Elisabete Fran�a, Theo Deutinger, Yasushi Aoyama, Deden Rukmana, Onur Ekmekci, Felix Madrazo, Ellen Dunham-Jones, Silvio Torres, Vartivar Jaklian, Hans Stimmann, Paul Ostergaard, Justin McGuirk — who extended our views on world's peripheries. Levada-Center (Yuri Levada Analytical Center),Thomson Reuters, Project Russia Magazine, OJSC “MegaFon”, Aerorecord.ru (aerial photography), Graduate School of Urban Studies and Planning at the National Research University – Higher School of Economics (Alexander Vysokovskiy), Mathrioshka (data visualization), ScanEx RDC (satellite images)

— organizations who showed their generous support and provided critical guidance.

Vasiliy Auzan, Anna Kochkina, Efim Freidine — who managed coordination and programming wih the Moscow Urban Forum

Dima Barbanel and his MASTERSKAYA — who unveiled to us the magic of graphic design. Valentina Archangelskaya, Ludmila Marphina, Anna Naumenko, Rena Ivanyan — who gave organizational support for the General Moscow survey and focus groups to gather sociological data for the study.

Ekaterina Dyba, Oleg Kiselev, VasilyYablokov — who worked with geographical and city data.

Daria Nosova, Svetlana Dudina, Maria Serova, Alexander Kozikhin, Ksenia Chernobrovtseva, Stanislav Kozin, Marina Syomushkina, Sergey Chekmarev, Olga Tarasova, Alena Shlyakhovaya, Alexander Plotkin, Vladislav Kapustin, Azamat Nyrov, Vasily Goncharov, Anna Goga, Nikoleta Stankovic, Nataliya Komarova, Ekaterina Nuzhdina, Marina Skorikova, Anna Lents — Moscow Architectural Institute students for contributing to building periodization and physical mapping of territory access.

Ekaterina Sapozhnikova, Maria Nikitina, Anna Kaganovich (Moscow State University students, Urban Studies course of Olga Zinovyeva) — who contributed to interactive map of construction periods of buildings. Daria Koreneva, Tatyana Kumanina, Polina Korotkova, Regina Magomedzagirova, Maria Volik, Julia Neronska, Bogdana Gerasimeza (Moscow State University students, Urban Studies course of Olga Zinovyeva) — who contributed to documentation and establishing of a photo bank of valued buildings.

Dmitry Mayornikov, Anna Kartashova with Aerorecord.ru — who provided a new perspective for the research team with aerial photography.

Victor Krylov — who printed 3D models for “Archaeology of the Periphery” exhibition. Archnadzor, Sergey Klychkov, Marina Khrustaleva, Konstantin Chamorovskiy and Yana Mirontseva, chief-editor of the Moscow Heritage Magazine — who contributed to the list of valued buildings of the territory in focus.

Olga Kazakova (NIITIAG RAASN) — for interviewing Nina Krainiaya and contributing to the list of valued buildings of the territory in focus.

Maxim Dubinin and Artem Svetlov with the NextGIS — who created an interactive map of valued buildings of the territory in focus. Irina Asvetyan, Tatyana Gladenkova, Sofia Latipova, Kristina Lebedeva (Moscow State University, Geographical Faculty) — for helping with Big Data processing. Denis Romodin — who organized an extended program for site visits and shared his enthusiasm and profound knowledge of the territory in focus.

Aleksandr Dolgin with HSE — for support and academic expertise.

Aleksandr Gavrilov — for creative support, expertise and passion for his research method.

Elena Uglovskaya and Meganom — who contributed to the design and production of the

“Archaeology of the Periphery” exhibition at the Moscow Urban Forum 2013 in Manege.

Nikolai Maksimov — our driver, who maintained his positive disposition in the weekend traffic.

WE ARE EXTENDING DEEP GRATITUDE TO:

M O S C O WU R B A N F O R U M

A N A N N U A L I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O N F E R E N C E I N T H E F I E L D O F U R B A N P L A N N I N G , ARCHITECTURE, ECONOMICS AND STRATEGIC CITY PLANNING, ORGANIZED BY THE MOSCOW CITY GOVERNMENT SINCE 2011. FORUM HAS GAINED A REPUTATION OF A SUCCESSFUL PLATFORM FOR GENERATING EXCHANGES BETWEEN WORLD’S LEADING EXPERTS ON URBANISM, CITY MANAGEMENT AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. THE FORUM P RO V I D E S A N O P P O R T U N I T Y T O D I S C U S S C H A L L E N G E S A N D O P P O R T U N I T I E S T H A T ARE CREATED IN THE MODERN MEGAPOLISES, TO CONSIDER FUTURE VISIONS AND TRAJECTORIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, BASED NOT ONLY ON EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT, ECONOMICS AND TOP-DOWN PLANNING, BUT ALSO ON THE PERSPECTIVE OF A CITY DWELLER. MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH TEAM ‘ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PERIPHERY’- IS A PILOT PROJECT OF THE FORUM, WHICH OPENS A SERIES OF WORKS FOCUSED ON

THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

12

The rapid growth of megapolises in the 20th centu-ry has led to imbalances in the development of urban spaces. Only half a century ago, fueled by transport revolution and industrial production, the cities began to experience rapid growth and densification around the historic city cores. Today, dense urban develop-ment takes up to 95% of the total urbanized area.

The growth of urban agglomerations fueled by the in-flux of people, was quickly followed by the emergence of the cult of centre; where the city center becomes the most attractive and activated. This has led to an even greater divide in the quality of life between cen-tral the outer districts. A big percentage of the urban-ized territory, backed by the differentiated real estate prices, became and until present, remains a periph-ery. Despite the attempts to reduce the gap, the pe-riphery can never keep up with the centre in its de-velopment, like Achilles and the Tortoise in Zeno's paradoxes.

Multiculturalism of megacities takes on different forms when applied to the formation of the urban pe-ripheries. The American suburbia, favelas of Latin America, Indian slums, suburbs of Western Europe and post-socialist cities of capitalist Asia bear little resemblance. Since their origins are fundamentally

different, their side-to-side comparison is not always appropriate. Nevertheless, they share common char-acteristics, such as the lack of resources, uniformity of fabric and monotony of the environment.

The focus on periphery is crucial for Moscow and Russian audience and stands out in the international context. Moscow is one of the best examples of con-centric development. During the twentieth century its border gradually moved away from its historic core, adding new territories and creating an encircling hi-erarchy of spaces from city neighborhoods and sub-urbs to the district centres of adjacent areas. Super centralization of the radial structure of Moscow, the explosive growth in the twentieth century, the small size of the historic centre with its great significance for the city and the country – this is what makes it relevant and necessary to explore the potential of this development beyond the centre. It is important to mention, that for us development of a territory in no case equals new construction.

It is evident, that the "gravity" of the Moscow cen-tre operates far outside the Moscow Ring Road and it is necessary to urgently adopt a common strategy for the development of the entire metropolitan area. This requires bringing together a variety of specialists,

Archaeologyof the

Periphery

13

processing large amounts of data and coordinating ef-forts in all the levels of government.

Although our research task is smaller in scale, it is no less important. We are focusing on the terri-tory between the Third Ring Road and the Moscow Ring Road, an old Soviet Moscow with an embed-ded ideal model. This first zone of Moscow's periph-ery was completed in the 20th century and became a unique experiment to create the perfect social order, an ideal model for living. In order to uncover the im-print of the old model and reveal the latent potential of this spatial model, "archeology" becomes a useful instrument.

As the centre sets a certain quality of life and serves as a benchmark for the entire city, the high "gravita-tion" of the centre makes the signs of urban life invis-ible on the outskirts. Different optics are required in order to work with the non-central urban space. The tactic of "taking out" the centre and "sharpening the focus" on the peripheral territory will reveal what has been obscured and help identify the processes that take place, study potential, support or control the current forces at play.

The term "periphery," which is based on the opposi-tion to a semantic centre is used in a wide range of scientific fields. The myriad of approaches underlines the ambiguity of the phenomenon and at the same time provides a base for an multidisciplinary re-search. This research was performed by experts in so-ciology (S), politics (P), architecture and urban plan-ning (A), culture (C), economics (E) and big data (D). Methodology — SPACED — allows a broader view of the actual and potential intersections, going beyond the usual practice of urban planning.

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PERIPHERY - be-comes the research method of revealing the latent po-tential, a search for imprints, hidden planning struc-tures, objects of value and forces at play. The main purpose of this work is to attract attention: the largest area of Moscow comes out of the shadow. Previously underestimated territories become a topic of scrutiny

and debate; the space is reexamined and therefore be-comes more valuable. Shaing the potential of centre and the periphery could increase the overall attrac-tiveness and comfort level of the urban environment, in which the centripetal trends of development will be balanced by the centrifugal. To make this possible, it will be necessary to apply new approaches to man-agement, find other methods of data analysis and de-velop a common strategy for the development of the urban fringe.

The significance of the focus on the centre (or a sys-tem of centres) in the discussion of the fringe has been shifting. The spatial hierarchy that values a ter-ritory upon its proximity to the core has been failing. The modern 'real' city' takes over networks, creating a new language of opportunity. In these circumstances, the historic centre of the city, still endowed with sym-bolic and sacred meaning, starts operating in a funda-mentally different way. It is natural to assume that on the site of the former periphery there might be a new urban culture appearing, including the one aimed at overcoming the cult of a centre. This is just the begin-ning of the work. The cult of the centre is replaced by the cult of the periphery.

Yury Grigoryan

M O S C O W

S I N G A P O R E

M O S C O W

L O N D O N

M O S C O W

S A N T I A G O

M O S C O W

M E X I C O

M O S C O W

L O N D O N

M O S C O W

C A LC U T T A

M O S C O W

B E R L I N

M O S C O W

B U E N O S A I R E S

M O S C O W

B E R L I N