Programs - Round Table

Lev Roitman:

Once in Istanbul, you do not need to be an architect to figure out - the city grew without a meaningful master plan. Once in Paris, you see, without even knowing the story that at some stage this city was planned "under the ruler." Arriving in Moscow, you immediately note the giant scope of construction, which is true, it does not always correspond to the goet's formula: "Architecture is music in stone." However, where does it correspond? But, according to what plan is Moscow built? According to the 18th year of Leninsky, Stalin's 35th, Brezhnevsky 71st? However, it is being built, and on the way a new general plan for the development of the city for the coming 20 years is the plan of Yuri Luzhkov. We’ll talk about this plan. Participate in the program: academician of architecture Yuri Bocharov; Professor Grigory Golts - Academic Institute of People's Economic Programming; and director of the Center for Historical and Upstructions of Moscow, corresponding member of the International Academy of Architecture Viktor Sheredyga.

The general development plan of Moscow - our conversation is about this today. With the first question to Viktor Sheredyeg: Viktor Ivanovich, how do you evaluate this plan in general - as useful for the city, acceptable, improving the conditions of the existence of Muscovites?

Victor Sheredyga:

Good afternoon. This general plan, if you directly answer your question, in my understanding there is a step forward compared to the structure of the previous plans of Moscow, in comparison, I would say, with ideology. The main difference is that all previous General Planns of Moscow relied, and this is natural, on a planned economy, on a strict budget, for certain figures that should be achieved and which could only be achieved if the General Plan of the General Plan of the General Plan of the General Plan. Nevertheless, the story shows us that all the previous general planes of Moscow, including the most radical general plan of the 35th year, were executed at a very insignificant percentage, on average, if it was very averaged by 15 percent. Unfortunately, the same fate befell the last not very full-fledged General Plan of the 88th year, which you did not mention in your brief review. What fate awaits this general plan - let's see. But it was built a little differently - this is not so much a plan as a combination of forecast and a system of restrictions and tolerances, a kind of development of development. This is tracking not direct directive numbers, but of some ratios, some proportions. This is also not God the news, but still this is the approach, as if more homogeneous to the early market situation in which Russia is located.

Lev Roitman:

Thanks to Viktor Ivanovich. Natural, however, the question for non -specialists in architecture, urban planning and city planning: from your point of view, that the average Muscovite in the event of this plan is implemented, but will it receive or not receive for 20 years?

Victor Sheredyga:

I'll try to figure out how to answer here. Well, I think so that, in principle, the implementation of this general plan should lead to a certain improvement in the comfort of living in the city. A large enough place in this general plan is occupied by the problems of ecology, the problems of protecting green spaces in the city center, perhaps this section of the general plan in percentage has grown most, a huge number of new territories, including in the center of the city, which have, as it were, minimal environmental significance, received the status of protected ones. Further, I would say that a very important line in the General Plan of Moscow appeared - this is ensuring the working places of the indigenous people, thus the confrontation between the possible and partially available unemployment, although Moscow in this regard is quite calm. Well, and also in the same basket, I would add already growing up from the place, this should be noted as a positive fact of today, the withdrawal from the center and from residential areas to a lesser extent, from the center of mainly historical, industrial enterprises. That is, the action that was planned for the last three general planes and was absolutely not fulfilled. Finally, it began to be partially executed.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Viktor Ivanovich. And to Yuri Petrovich Bocharov: your assessment of this general plan, which, we emphasize this, has not yet been finalized yet.

Yuri Bocharov:

I believe that the General Plane needs significant refinement, even processing, since it does not take into account the modern global tendency to develop infrastructure and interaction with other capitals. He is all oriented inside Moscow only. The difference from the previous general plan - earlier Moscow was decided along with the region. Around Moscow lives a single (14 million inhabitants), a single agglomeration connected by cultural, labor ties. Now it is divided into two parts and the development of Moscow is territorially blocked, it is surrounded by a ring road and only 6% of reserves remained, with a need, given the development of transport very violent functions, with a need of at least 20-22%. Further, in this general plan, in fact, only issues under the auspices of the Moscow government are resolved, the zone for the federal government has not been allocated for the regional zones that work in Moscow, also does not. That is, the complexity of the structure of modern political activity in Moscow has not yet been reflected. It seemed to me that in the modern city, especially in the democratic one, where we share the functions of power, they should be localized. Moscow develops as in the 17th century, and under Stalin around one center. This is an archaic radial-concentric structure, if earlier it was associated with the area of the transverse connections, today it begins to crap, we are building several rings. There is a legend that Moscow is radial-ring, it was like that in the 17th century and then occupied 2% of the current Moscow. Moscow should be opened by the world, to be connected with it by a system of communications, and not enclosed by round highways. Now everything is focused on the needs of Muscovites, the interests of Russians and communications with Europe and Russia, it seems to me that they are still weak here. And the latter, this plan, essentially, is a combination of the construction of the Moscow government over the past 2 years, about 15 decisions, and their terms - 2002, 2005 - this is the summation of the decisions already made. Therefore, there is no general strategy for the perspective of the city, it is not shown.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Yuri Petrovich. Marina Katys, our Moscow correspondent, on the eve of this program held his mini -provision of Muscovites, and I must say that Yuri Petrovich spoke just about the transport problem, about this ringing of Moscow, that those with whom Marina Katys managed to talk is extremely positive about this. Let's listen to one voice:

“I greetly welcome the construction of the third transport ring, because I, as a person who moves around Moscow only by car, because in principle I go on crutches, but nevertheless I am a normal person with the car, I believe that I have finally made sense for the construction of this third transport ring. This could be done much earlier, but then there were all these cries around the ecology. But now, I believe that Yuri Mikhailovich found the right decision And in every way I welcome, because it is convenient to move, and there will be less traffic jams in any case.

Well, here is an assessment of the Muscovite.

Grigory Golts:

The transport problem in the general plans of Moscow is a core problem. And not only is connected with a purely engineering solution and a transport solution, but the fact is that it is in the movements of the population that their sensation of their space, life, and relationships with difficulty, with recreation and with everything else are expressed. That is, this is, as it were, an indicator of the reaction of the population to certain urban planning measures. I want to say that in the old general plans, starting from the 70s, the idea of the chord lasted, and in general it was even in the emblems of the general plan. I do not want to say that the decision of the ring is harmful, say, for the general plan, for Moscow. No, but the fact is that the chord decision, it more meets the meaning and spirit of the relationship of the city of Moscow with the environment, with agglomeration. But the main conflict, I would say, in another, the fact is that now motorization in Moscow has reached about 250 cars per thousand inhabitants. And the pace of development of motorization is subject to geometric progression, and it can be expected that after 20 years saturation will be approximately 500 cars per thousand inhabitants. With such saturation by cars and given the relationship with agglomeration, we will need about 5 times more areas for transport facilities, I mean highways, residential streets, parking lots, garages. This is almost if such dense development, which is planned by the general plan, cannot be implemented. This means that the organic drawback of this plan arises - that which, with this motorization, is impossible to realize the transport scheme for truly. And the second - this is that it is necessary to solve the problem of interconnection, density of development and motorization. World experience shows that with such saturation by cars, people begin to settle in the suburbs, to form not only as our plots, but the second dwellings, and this corresponds, in fact, a new style of life with this motorization. And let's say, with such a building on 20 floors and more, it is completely impossible to combine this motorization and such dense development. And I think that in the process of implementing the general plan, this problem will still arise and it will have to be solved. I think that it would now be when finalizing this general plan to view the possibilities and solutions of this conflict, because these fragments that are planned, of course, are before our eyes, if they are realized, it will be pleasant. But still, this is not a solution to the cardinal problems of transport and the population of Moscow.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Grigory Abramovich. I want to turn on another voice now - a Muscovite who participated in Marina Katys’s mini -request, and she pays attention to another problem:

"Of course, as an motorist, the third transport ring did not prevent me from the point of view of unloading the tracks, since it is a little pleasure to stand in" traffic jams ", especially in the summer, when it is hot and everything overheats. And on the other hand, of course, this third transport ring will go through the living, especially Lefortovo, many places that have been used to childhood. Therefore, you have to choose - or nostalgic memories, or nostalgic memories, or nostalgic memories. Or the convenience of life.

Viktor Ivanovich Sheredyga, you are a director of not just a center for urban planning research, but historical and urban planning research. What do you say about these considerations of the Muscovite?

Victor Sheredyga:

I want to say that, firstly, now the idea of the third transport ring is slightly different in the planning and essentially relations from the third ring that existed in the minds of designers and Muscovites 10 years ago. This is due to the fact that the scheme of the organization of this transport ring of the third on the railway of the district Moscow, and not along the living fabric of the periphery of Moscow, which seemed to prevail in earlier schemes, was adopted. This shear itself is very positive, although it does not cost the production of work, but it allows this highway to go more tightly, less affecting the specific interests of Muscovites. Regarding the problem of Lefortovo and historical monuments, historical ensembles, as I understand it, for today the completion of this half -ring associated with the Riga overpass, walking through Lefortovo, is no longer conceived as the completion of the ground. Two options compete: either a puncture of deep laying tunnel, which is associated with very serious costs, but in many ways solves the problem of preserving the historical and cultural heritage, or a small tunnel, which is slightly more aggressively correlated with both the natural and the historical environment of Lefortovo. The final decision today has not yet been made, of course, we would like to see a deep tunnel here, but this is really all connected with the economy in a serious way. In any case, I believe that attention to the solution of transport, as one of the problems of urbanism, is very lacking in Moscow - urbanism, not urban planning, first of all, is still a much more reasonable investment of state Moscow money than the construction of an absolutely harmful trading city in the Manezhnaya Square in the very center of Moscow, which, in principle, is absorbed, in principle, transport as a sponge.

Yuri Bocharov:

I believe that the construction of the third ring, in principle, is inappropriate. It is designed to distract the flows from the center, but in the center 35-33% of jobs are concentrated on 6% of the territory. Until we unload them, and we are building offices and elite houses again there, streams will break into the center, so it will not work. Now the second question, when we built the Moscow Ring Road, we spent 600 million on the Moscow Ring Road and built, reconstructed 109 kilometers of the district road, because it did not change anything. Well, you rush at high speed around the ring, go down and travel 20 kilometers. Now it is a ring, it has a length of 54 kilometers in total. How much does it cost? Two billion. That is, it is 5-6 times more expensive than that ring. Why? Because it is an artificial ring, 60% overpass, bridges, interchanges, tunnels, punctures. This is a fantastically monetary project and so far they began to build it, and the general plan has not been approved, the flows have not been defined, but it is being built. Why? He is beneficial to the builders. In Moscow, we have the largest army of builders in the world - 700 thousand or 14%. If you take New York, there are 3%builders, Washington - 2%, London - 4. But London built a tunnel near La -Channel for Paris. Here we have a large complex ineffective and build overpasses - this is the sweetest and most monetary business. The second question is that the overpass will pass by residential buildings, about 40 thousand people fall into the noise zone. We will have to change several thousand windows, make them soundproof. It will be necessary to build noise -izer walls, at Mozhaisk it will even be necessary to build a dome 40 meters high to protect against noise. Very cumbersome building. It will be unusually expensive, but will not solve the problem of distraction of flows from the city center.

Grigory Golts:

You know, we somehow focused on this automobile ring, but in fact, most of the population uses the subway. 40% of all transportation is carried out by the metro, and so it will be in the future. Here are large reserves of improving the transport scheme. People lose a lot of time on transplants. If in due time, and this was provided in the General Plan of the 35th year, routing was equipped, then people would get from the departure point to the arrival point about twice as soon as possible at the same cost. This is simply due to the special conditions for the construction of the subway and the convenience of operation was made so that the lines work without branches. The second is the increasing pressure of pensioners, and in the future the general plan is completely not illuminated, that where these people will live. And there will be 25 of them, maybe even 30%. And according to all the canons with this motorization, which will be ahead, of course, it would be desirable for them to live not in Moscow itself, but somewhere in the vicinity, in good environmental conditions. And for this, then you need to view the possibilities of this construction and a transport scheme that would be close to these new conditions of people's life, in this, say, bored space, they will also continue to live as before.

Lev Roitman:

Well, let's hope that the objections of opponents and critics of this plan will be heard.